Adilaxmi Sudhakar Reddy vs The State Of Maharashtra

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8824 Bom
Judgement Date : 17 November, 2017

Bombay High Court
Adilaxmi Sudhakar Reddy vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 November, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                           6. cri wp 2427-17 & appw 451-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2427 OF 2017
                                           WITH
                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 451 OF 2017


            Sashikumar Ramaswamy Harijan                                          .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                       .. Respondents

                                                     ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Santosh S. Musale Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar       APP for the State
            Mr. Vinay J. Bhanushali Advocate for the Applicant in Cri. Appln. No.  
                                                  451 of 2017
                                                     ...................



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

DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2017.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the intervenor who is the wife of the deceased.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 11.3.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:29:34 :::

6. cri wp 2427-17 & appw 451-17.doc 22.12.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 18.3.2017, hence, this petition.

3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected on the ground that the police report shows that if the petitioner is released on furlough, there is danger to the life of the complainant and the witnesses. It is also rejected on the ground that when the brother of the petitioner was released on furlough in the year 2014, he did not report back in time to the prison and instead, he absconded, hence, it is apprehended that if the application of the petitioner is granted he will not report back to the prison and he will abscond.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that furlough is a right and the petitioner has to be released on furlough as a matter of right. As far as this submission is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of State of jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:29:34 :::

6. cri wp 2427-17 & appw 451-17.doc Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar1 has observed that, ".......... But release on furlough cannot be said to be an absolute right of the prisoner as culled out from Rule. 17." Rule 17 reads as under:-

"17. Nothing in these rules shall be construed as conferring a legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough."

5. Learned counsel for the intervenor pointed out that the petitioner wants to spend his period of furlough in Dahisar and the complainant and other witnesses are staying close to Dahisar and they apprehend danger to their life. Learned counsel for the intervenor placed reliance on the post mortem report of the husband of the intervenor to show that he had sustained 16 injuries. He stated that the intervenor is a young helpless woman and she has two minor children. She apprehends danger to her life. So also the police report shows that if the petitioner is released on furlough, there would be danger to the life of the complainant and the witnesses. Looking to the apprehension of the wife of the 1 AIR 2006 SC 2471 : 2006 ALL M.R. (Cri) 1839 (S.C.) jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:29:34 :::

6. cri wp 2427-17 & appw 451-17.doc deceased, the police report and the orders of the Authorities, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.

6. As we have heard learned counsel for the intervenor at length in this petition, hence, nothing survives in the criminal application, the same is also disposed of.




[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                    [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                           4 of 4




       ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:29:34 :::