Krushna Kashinath Jhanjhane vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 7089 Bom

                                                                                1b. cri  wp 4119-16.doc


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




                                                                                                
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4119 OF 2016




                                                                        
            Krushna Kashinath Jhanjhane                                  .. Petitioner

                                 Versus




                                                                       
            The State of Maharashtra                                     .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances




                                                            
            Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mr. Arfan Sait      APP for the State
                                              
                                     ...................
                                             
                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              A.M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2016.

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

1. Heard both sides.

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

3. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

20.2.2016. The application was rejected by order dated

20.5.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred

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

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

1b. cri wp 4119-16.doc

dated 29.8.2016, hence, this petition.

4. The application of the petitioner for furlough came to

be rejected mainly on the ground that on 9.8.1995, when the

petitioner was released on furlough for a period of 14 days,

he did not report back in time and he absconded. Ultimately,

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

back to prison.

There was overstay on the part of the

petitioner of 6362 days. The petitioner was brought back by

the police on 29.1.2013. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner

absconded almost for a period of 8 years. In view of this

fact, it is apprehended that if the petitioner is released on

furlough, he will not report back to the prison in time and he

will abscond. Looking to the past conduct of the petitioner, it

cannot be said that this apprehension is unfounded. In this

view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is

discharged.

5. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

1b. cri wp 4119-16.doc

is in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.

                                                                                  
                                                          
    [ A.M. BADAR, J. ]                    [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




                                                         
                                                
                                    
                                   
      
   






    jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                             3 of 3