Kamne @ Javed Hanif Lalakhan vs The State Of Maharashtra

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8544 Bom
Judgement Date : 8 November, 2017

Bombay High Court
Kamne @ Javed Hanif Lalakhan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 November, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                              29.wp 4172.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4172 OF 2017

                 Kamne @ Javed Hanif Lalakhan                     .. Petitioner
                      Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra                        .. Respondent

                 Mr. Prosper D'Souza, for the Petitioner.
                 Mr. Arfan Sait, APP  for State.

                                               CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                                              M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

08th NOVEMBER, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.

V .K.TAHILRAMANI, J) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 22/11/2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 22/02/2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an Appeal. The Appeal was dismissed by order dated 14/07/2017. Hence, this Petition.

3. One of the grounds on which the application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected is that in 2015 when 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 01:11:46 :::

29.wp 4172.17.doc the petitioner was released on furlough, he committed another offence pursuant to which C.R. No. 451 of 2015 came to be registered at Park Site Police Station, Vikhroli, Mumbai. In view of this fact, it is apprehended that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he will again indulge in another offence. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner when he was last released on furlough, it cannot be said that this apprehension is without any basis. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage. The Petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Nashik Road Central Prison. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 01:11:46 :::