Khurshid @ Mulani Harun Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 4664 Bom

Sherla V.



                                                                           wp.4147.2015_6.doc


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                      
                             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4147 OF 2015

            Khurshid @ Mulani Harun Shaikh                    ... Petitioner




                                                              
                   Vs.

            The State of Maharashtra                          ... Respondent




                                                             
            Mr.Prosper D'souza, advocate appointed for the Petitioner
            Mrs.U.V. Kejriwal, APP, for Respondent - State




                                                    
                                       CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, ACT. C.J. &
                                           ig MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE: AUGUST 11, 2016

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner has preferred an application for furlough on

23.2.2015. The said application came to be rejected by order dated

1.5.2015. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal. The

said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 25.8.2015, hence, this

petition.

4. The application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected

mainly on the ground that on the earlier occasion when the petitioner was

released on furlough, he did not report back to prison in time. Ultimately,

wp.4147.2015_6.doc

the petitioner had to be traced and arrested by the police and brought

back to the prison. In view of the conduct of the petitioner, when he was

last released on furlough, it was apprehended by the authorities that if the

petitioner is again released on furlough, he may not report back to the

prison and he may abscond. Looking to the 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.

5. Rule is discharged.

6.

Fees to be paid to the appointed advocate are quantified at

Rs.2,500/-.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)