jdk 1 2.crwp.3430.16.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3430 OF 2016
Irappa Subhash Sharmal ]
@ Dhangar ]
Age 30 years, Occ: Service, ]
Residing at Behind Shivsena Shakha ]
Sai Shraddha CHS, ]
Ramgadh Nagar, Ganesh Gawde Road]
Mulund (W), Mumbai. ]
At present in Nashik Central Jail, ]
Nashik ].. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Learned Public Prosecutor ]
High Court, Mumbai ]
]
2. The Superintendent, ]
Nashik Central Prison, Nashik ]
]
3. The Deputy Inspector General of ]
Police, State of Maharashtra ]
Aurangabad ]
]
4. The Inspector General of Prisons, ]
State of Maharashtra, Central ]
Building, Pune-411001 ].. Respondents
....
Mr. Raju Vijay Parad Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
....
1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2016 00:39:54 :::
jdk 2 2.crwp.3430.16.j.doc
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 17, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Heard both sides. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing.
2The petitioner preferred an application for furlough.
The said application came to be rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 2.7.2016.
3 The application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected mainly on the ground that on 26.8.2014 when the petitioner was released on furlough for a period of 14 days, he did not report back to the prison in time. As the petitioner did not report back to the prison in time, the police had to trace him, arrest him and bring him back to the prison. There was overstay on the part of the petitioner of 33 days. Based on these facts, the authorities apprehend that if the petitioner is again released on furlough, he will abscond and will not report 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2016 00:39:54 ::: jdk 3 2.crwp.3430.16.j.doc back to the prison. Looking to the past conduct of the petitioner, it cannot be said that this apprehension is without any basis, hence, we are not inclined to interfere. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ] kandarkar 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2016 00:39:54 :::