jdk 1 10.crwp.4050.17.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4050 OF 2017
C/8572 Ritesh @ Karan
Rashmikant Pawar,
Nashik Road Central Prison,
Nasik .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....
Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
M.S.KARNIK, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 13, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]:
1 Heard both sides. 2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on
25.8.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:49:53 ::: jdk 2 10.crwp.4050.17.j.doc 1.4.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 11.8.2017, hence, this petition.
3 The application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected on the ground that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he will abscond. The second ground on which the application of the petitioner for furlough was rejected, was that if he is released on furlough, there may be a law and order problem. The third ground on which the application of the petitioner was rejected was that the police report was adverse. The fourth ground on which the application of the petitioner was rejected was that there is an appeal pending before a higher forum.
4 As far as the first two grounds are concerned, jail record of the petitioner shows that he was released on parole in the year 2014 and he has not absconded but he has reported back to the prison on the due date on his own. This shows that there is no tendency on the part of the petitioner to abscond. During the period that the petitioner was on parole, there is no 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:49:53 ::: jdk 3 10.crwp.4050.17.j.doc record to show that he had indulged in any illegal activities. Thus, the second ground on which the application of the petitioner for furlough has been rejected, is without any basis. 5 As far as the third ground is concerned, on the last occasion when the petitioner was released on parole, he has not absconded but he reported back on the due date to the prison on his own. During the period the petitioner was on parole, the petitioner has not indulged in any illegal activities. It is further stated that the conduct of the petitioner is good in prison. In view of the above facts, it appears that the police report is the usual police report prepared without application of mind, hence, the same cannot be taken into consideration. 6 As far as the last ground for rejecting the application for furlough is concerned i.e. the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before higher forum, this provision was introduced by Notification dated 26.8.2016 and the application of the petitioner was prior to that, thus, this Notification cannot be made retrospectively applicable to the petitioner. Hence, this ground also could not be available to reject the application 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:49:53 ::: jdk 4 10.crwp.4050.17.j.doc of the petitioner for furlough.
7 Looking to the above facts, we are inclined to grant furlough to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner to be released on furlough for a period of 14 days on the usual terms and conditions as set out by the jail authorities. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ M.S.KARNIK, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] kandarkar 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:49:53 :::