Bhaskar Janu Khadme vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 7611 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 7611 Bom
Judgement Date : 22 December, 2016

Bombay High Court

Bhaskar Janu Khadme vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 December, 2016

Bench: V.K. Tahilramani

                                                                 (11)WPNo.7902016(2)

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                              
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.790 OF 2016




                                                     
    Bhaskar Janu Khadme      ...               Petitioner
         V/s.




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

Mr.Prosper D'Souza, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Arfan Sait, 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

which was granted and he was released on furlough from

02/09/2015 to 15/09/2015. The petitioner preferred an

application for extension of furlough on 07/09/2015 on the

Gaikwad RD 1/2

(11)WPNo.7902016(2)

ground of illness of his wife. Extension was sought for a

period of 14 days I.e.. from 16/09/2015 to 29/09/2015. The

said application for extension of furlough was rejected, hence

this petition.

4 For seeking extension of furlough, petitioner is

relying on a medical certificate issued by Shripad Hospital,

Khopoli, District Raigad. The medical certificate is without any

date. Moreover, the medical certificate shows that wife of the

petitioner is suffering from 'pyxeria'. Medical dictionary states

that 'pyrexia' means 'fever'.

5 Looking to the fact that the medical certificate is

without any date and looking to the fact that wife of the

petitioner was only suffering from fever, we do not think that

this is a fit case for grant of extension of furlough, hence

prayer of the petitioner is rejected.

    6                  Rule is discharged.




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

    Gaikwad RD                                                                      2/2