Ravi Shrichand Punjabi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 7613 Bom

                                                                        (2)WPNo.40902016

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                  
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4090 OF 2016




                                                          
    Ravi Shrichand Punjabi             ... Petitioner
          V/s.




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

Mr.Rajendra J. Rathod, 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.
                                
    P.C.
    1                  Heard both sides.
      


    2                  Rule.           By consent, Rule     is   made returnable
   



    forthwith.





    3                  The petitioner has preferred an application for

furlough on 27/04/2015 which came to be rejected on

08/07/2016. Being aggrieved thereby, he preferred an

appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed by order dated

13/12/2016. The application for furlough came to be rejected

on the grounds that there was danger to the life of the

Gaikwad RD 1/3

(2)WPNo.40902016

complainant and witnesses; that he is involved in a case

under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (For short

'M.C.O.C.Act.) and mainly on the ground that the police report

was adverse.

4 It was also rejected on the ground that a second

case is pending against the petitioner i.e. C.R.No.355 of 2012

of DCB, CID. It is stated that the petitioner has been acquitted

in the said case vide Judgment and Order dated 03/09/2015.

The Judgment has been produced for our perusal.

5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that other accused who have been convicted under the

M.C.O.C. Act have been granted furlough. This statement is

not controverted by the prosecution. Moreover, the jail record

shows that the petitioner has been released on parole on two

occasions and on both occasions, he had surrendered back to

the prison in time.

6. Looking to the fact that on both occasions the

petitioner surrendered back to the prison in time and that

Gaikwad RD 2/3

(2)WPNo.40902016

during this time, there were no complaints about the conduct

of the petitioner and the fact that convicts who are similarly

situated has been granted furlough, we are inclined to release

the petitioner on furlough. Hence, the following order :

The petitioner be released on furlough on the usual

terms and conditions as set out by the Jail authorities.

Rule is made absolute in above terms.

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

Gaikwad RD 3/3