Yakub Husain Panwale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 4875 Bom

     jdk                                                  1                                              10.crwp.3343.14.doc




                                                                                                                      
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3343 OF 2014




                                                                                              
    Yakub Husain Panwale                                                            .. Petitioner

                        Vs.




                                                                                             
    The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                                 .. Respondents


                                  ....




                                                                         
    Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner
    Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State       
                                  ....
                                             
                                            CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
                                                    MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 24, 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

12.6.2013. The said application came to be rejected. Appeal

against the order of rejection was dismissed on 4.10.2013,

hence, this petition.

                                                                                                        1   of  3





      jdk                                                  2                                              10.crwp.3343.14.doc

    3                   The application of the petitioner was rejected in view




                                                                                                                      

of Rule 4(10) of the Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

The said rule states that prisoners who have at any time

escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have

defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the

appropriate time after release on parole or furlough, shall not

be considered for release on furlough.

The record shows that the petitioner preferred an

application for furlough on 10.3.2008. The said application was

granted by order dated 27.6.2008. Pursuant to the said order,

the petitioner was released on furlough on 26.8.2008 for a

period of 14 days. The said furlough leave was further

extended by a period of 14 days and the due date of surrender

was on 24.9.2008. However, the petitioner did not report back

to the prison in time. As the petitioner did not surrender on the

due date, the Superintendent of Police, Pune Region, Pune was

requested to bring the petitioner back to the prison vide their

letter dated 4.10.2008. Notice was also given to the petitioner

and his surety that the petitioner should surrender back to the

prison. This notice is dated 13.12.2008. Ultimately, the

2 of 3

jdk 3 10.crwp.3343.14.doc

petitioner was traced and was arrested by Faraskhana Police

Station and brought back to the prison on 22.7.2010. Thus,

there was delay of 666 days on the part of the petitioner in

surrendering back to the prison. In view of this past history of

the petitioner it was apprehended that if the petitioner is

released on furlough, he will again abscond and not report back

to the prison in time. Looking to the earlier conduct of the

petitioner, it cannot be said that this apprehension is without

any basis.

Thus, we find no error in the order rejecting the

application of the petitioner for furlough, hence, Rule is

discharged.

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

kandarkar

3 of 3