Sunil Laxman Gode vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 9314 Bom
Judgement Date : 5 December, 2017

Bombay High Court
Sunil Laxman Gode vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 5 December, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                                   8. cri wp 4683-17.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4683 OF 2017


            Sunil Laxman Ghode                                            .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                               .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar       APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
                                              M.S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 5, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 5.11.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 20.4.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 20.9.2017, hence, this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 2




                   ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2017                          ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:58:32 :::
                                                             8. cri wp 4683-17.doc




3. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected mainly on the ground that in the year 2010, when the petitioner was released on parole, he did not report back to the prison in time and he had to be traced and arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. On this occasion, there was overstay of 146 days on the part of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on furlough on 22.1.2014 for a period of 14 days, however, the petitioner did not report back to the prison in time and there was overstay of 144 days on the part of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it was apprehended by the Authorities that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he will not report back to the prison in time and he may abscond. 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. Rule is discharged.




[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                    [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 2




       ::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 02:58:32 :::