3. cri wp 5075-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5075 OF 2017
Abhishek Sureshkumar Singh @ Harish .. 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, Acting C.J. &
M.S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 16.6.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 27.2.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 27.7.2017, hence, this petition.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:27:48 :::
3. cri wp 5075-17.doc
3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner had entered into the office of the builder and fired with a unlicensed pistol and thus, committed murder. In view of this fact, it was apprehended that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he may again commit similar offence.
4. We have perused the judgment of the Sessions Court whereby the petitioner came to be convicted and sentenced under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The said case is Sessions Case No. 436 of 2011 and the Judgment & Order is dated 12.5.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. On perusal of the said judgment especially paragraph 49 thereof shows that only the person in Green tee-shirt fired in the direction of Ajit who was the bodyguard of the builder. This person was apparently accused No. 3. The evidence shows that the petitioner who was accused No. 4 in the said case was wearing yellow shirt on the date of the incident. On going through the record of jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:27:48 :::
3. cri wp 5075-17.doc the Sessions case, it is seen that only accused No. 3 fired at Ajit and not the present petitioner.
5. Thus, looking to the record in the Sessions Case, it is clear that the petitioner is not the person who has fired, hence, we are of the opinion that the application of the petitioner for furlough has been rejected on the wrong ground. In this view of the matter, the orders dated 27.2.2017 and 27.7.2017 are set aside.
6. The petitioner to be released on furlough on the usual terms and conditions as imposed by the Competent Authority.
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:27:48 :::