Ganpatsingh Kalusingh Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 7608 Bom

                                                                 (10)WPNo.7892016(2)

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                              
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.789 OF 2016




                                                     
    Ganpatsingh Kalusingh Thakur ...       Petitioner
          V/s.




                                                    
    The State of Maharashtra           ... Respondent
                                  .....

Ms.Rohini M. Dandekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP for the Respondent/State.

....

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

DATED : 22nd DECEMBER 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per V.K.TAHILRAMANI J.) 1 Heard both sides.

2 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the

matter is heard finally.

3 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough

on 03/06/2015. The said application was granted and the and

the petitioner came to be released on furlough on 20/08/2015

for a period of 14 days. Thus the petitioner has to surrender

on 03/09/2015. In the meanwhile, the petitioner preferred an

Gaikwad RD 1/3

(10)WPNo.7892016(2)

application for extension of furlough for a period 14 days i.e.

from 03/09/2015 to 16/09/2015. The said application was

rejected, hence this petition.

4 The petitioner preferred an application for extension

of furlough on 26/08/2015. The said application was admittedly

made within time. The reason for seeking extension was that

the petitioner was suffering from piles and back-pain. It is

admitted that the petitioner was suffering from piles and back-

pain, however the application of the petitioner for extension of

furlough came to be rejected on the ground that he was not

admitted in the hospital and he should have surrendered to the

prison and thereafter taken treatment.

5 As stated earlier the fact that the petitioner was

suffering from piles and back-pain is not controverted. It is

further admitted that during the period when the petitioner

was suffering from piles and back-pain, he complied with all

the terms and conditions imposed on him for being released on

furlough. In addition, the petitioner has been reporting to the

police station as per the terms and conditions. The jail record

Gaikwad RD 2/3

(10)WPNo.7892016(2)

of the petitioner shows that he was released on furlough on

five occasions during the period from 2012 to 2016 and on all

occasions he has reported back to the prison in time. The

only period that the petitioner did not report back in time was

for the period of 03/09/2015 to 16/09/2015, when the

petitioner had preferred an application for extension of

furlough and the said application was rejected on 22/12/2015.

Looking to the jail record of the petitioner and the

other facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the

opinion that on humanitarian ground furlough period ought to

be extended from 03/09/2016 to 16/09/2016. Accordingly, the

period is extended from 03/09/2016 to 16/09/2016.

7 Any prison punishment imposed on account of

overstay is set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

8 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner,

who is in Yerwada Open Central Prison.

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

    Gaikwad RD                                                                       3/3