10. cri wp 3553-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3553 OF 2016
Chetan Ramdas Dumbare .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 26, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 13.4.2015. The said application came to be rejected on 10.11.2015. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 9.3.2016, hence, this petition wherein the petitioner has prayed for furlough.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:52:27 :::
10. cri wp 3553-16.doc
3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that on 22.9.2012, when the petitioner was released on parole, he did not report back in time. Ultimately, the police had to trace the petitioner, arrest him and bring him back to prison.
The petitioner was arrested and brought back to prison on 17.7.2014. Thus, there was overstay of 631 days. In view of this fact, it was apprehended that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he will not report back to the prison in time and he will abscond.
The second ground on which the application of the petitioner was rejected is that the petitioner is involved in a case under Section 394 of IPC, hence, in view of Rule 4(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959, the petitioner was not entitled to be released on furlough. Rule 4(2) provides that the prisoner convicted of the offences under Sections 392 to 402 of IPC shall not be granted furlough. In addition, the conduct of the petitioner in jail has not been satisfactory. In view of these facts, the application jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:52:27 :::
10. cri wp 3553-16.doc of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected.
4. In view of the fact that there was overstay of 631 days, it cannot be said that the apprehension of the authorities that the petitioner, if released on furlough, will not report back in time and will abscond, is without any basis.
Moreover, in view of Rule 4(2) and the other facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot find any fault with the authorities for rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough.
5. In view of above, we are not inclined to interfere, hence, Rule is discharged.
6. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Yerawada Central Prison, Pune.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:52:27 :::