Sagar Prakash Mokar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 7243 Bom

                                                                    (903)WPNo.43452014

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4345 OF 2014




                                                        
    Sagar Prakash Mokar                ... Petitioner
         V/s.




                                                       
    The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...    Respondents
                                  .....

Mrs.Nasreen S.K.Ayubi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent/State.

....

ig CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI & A. M. BADAR JJ.

DATED : 15th DECEMBER 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per V.K.TAHILRAMAJI J.)

1 Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough

on 06/07/2013. The said application was rejected by order

dated 05/03/2014. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by order dated

10/06/2016. Hence, this petition.

3 The application of the petitioner came to be

rejected mainly on the ground that on 27/08/2012 with the

Gaikwad RD 1/2

(903)WPNo.43452014

petitioner was released on parole for a period of 30 days there

was overstay of 130 days on the part of the petitioner. Hence,

it was apprehended that if the petitioner was released on

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

to the reason stated in the order rejecting the application of

the petitioner for furlough, we are not inclined to interfere,

more especially in view of the fact that as per Rule 9 of the

Bombay Furlough and Parole Rule 1959, the petitioner after

six months of rejection of his earlier application for furlough

has preferred a fresh application for furlough on 13/10/2016,

which is pending.

4 In view of the fact that a fresh application for

furlough is pending, we are not inclined to interfere and the

authority to decide the application expeditiously taking into

consideration the recent conduct of the petitioner in prison as

well as other facts and circumstances.

5 In view of above, Rule is discharged.

    (A. M. BADAR J.)                   (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI J.)


    Gaikwad RD                                                                       2/2