Narayan Pandurang Madhvi vs The Commissioner Of Police ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8782 Bom
Judgement Date : 16 November, 2017

Bombay High Court
Narayan Pandurang Madhvi vs The Commissioner Of Police ... on 16 November, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                               9. WP 4138-17.doc

DDR

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 4138 OF 2017
       Narayan Pandurang Madhvi                         ...Petitioner
                  V/s
       The Commissioner of Police through
       Superintendent of Central Prison                 ...Respondent
                                      ...........

Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, Advocate appointed for the petitioner. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. - State.

...........

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

                                  DATE               :      16th NOVEMBER, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.):-

Heard both sides. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 25/11/2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 14/2/2017. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 12/7/2017, hence this Petition.

2. One of the reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough is that the appeal preferred by him against his 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:19:48 :::

9. WP 4138-17.doc conviction is pending before the higher Court and he has not been granted bail by the said Court. In Notification dated 26/8/2016 it is provided that the prisoner whose appeal against conviction is pending before a higher Court and he has not been granted bail in the said matter, shall not be released on furlough. In view of the Notification we cannot find any error in the order rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough. No case is made out for interference.

3. Rule is discharged.

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) ( SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI J.) 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:19:48 :::