Rakesh Mahadu Dandekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6488 Bom

                                                                                  3. cri wp 3400-15.doc


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




                                                                                                
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3400 OF 2015




                                                                        
            Rakesh Mahadu Dandekar                                       .. Petitioner

                                 Versus




                                                                       
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                              .. Respondents

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




                                                            
            Mr. Ranjeet H. Patil i/by
            Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil      Advocate for the Petitioner
                                              
            Mr. Arfan Sait            APP for the State
                                        ...................
                                             
                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 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

20.7.2013. The said application came to be rejected by

order dated 21.10.2014. Being aggrieved thereby, the

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 2

3. cri wp 3400-15.doc

petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be

dismissed by order dated 21.1.2015, hence, this petition.

4. From the Jail Chart, the learned APP pointed out that

thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for furlough

on 18.6.2015 and the said application came to be allowed

and the petitioner was released on furlough from 21.11.2015

to 5.12.2015. Thus, it is seen that soon after the application

for the petitioner for furlough was rejected, in the very same

year, he has been released on furlough. In view of this fact,

we are not inclined to interfere, hence, Rule is discharged.

   





    [ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ]           [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]





    jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 2