Irun Ilichand Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 4612 Bom

     jdk                                                    1                                              4.crwp.2488.16.j.doc


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                                      
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2488 OF 2016




                                                                                              
    Irun Ilichand Chavan                                                            .. Petitioner

                        Vs.




                                                                                             
    The State of Maharashtra                                                        .. Respondent

                                  ....
    Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate appointed for Petitioner
    Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal A.P.P. for the State




                                                                         
                                  ....
                                              
                                            CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
                                                    MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 10, 2016

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

1 Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule is made

returnable forthwith.

2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

5.11.2015. The said application came to be rejected by order

dated 5.2.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed by

order dated 9.5.2016, hence, this petition.

3 The main reason for rejecting the application for

furlough was that in the year 2013 i.e. on 28.3.2013 when the

petitioner was released on parole, he did not report back to the

1 of 2

jdk 2 4.crwp.2488.16.j.doc

prison in time. There was overstay on his part of 96 days for

which the prison punishment of cutting of remission of 495

days was imposed. Looking to the fact that on the last

occasion the petitioner did not report back in time, it is

apprehended that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he

will not report back in time. Looking to the past conduct of the

petitioner, it cannot be said that this apprehension is without

any basis. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to

interfere, hence, Rule is discharged.

4 In case the petitioner prefers a fresh application for

furlough, the same to be considered expeditiously and the

conduct of the petitioner in the recent past to be taken into

account while deciding the same.

5 Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

6 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner

who is in Nasik Road Central Prison.

7 Legal fees to be paid to the appointed advocate is

quantified at Rs.2500/-.

[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]

kandarkar

2 of 2