Bombay High Court
Keshav Mahadaya Barad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 October, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 7.crwp.3417.16.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3417 OF 2016
Keshav Mahadaya Barad ]
C/10093 ]
Presently lodged in Nasik Road ]
Central Prison, Nasik ].. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ig ].. Respondent
....
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 17, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Heard both sides.
2 The petitioner had preferred an application for
furlough on 24th September, 2015. The police report was called
for from Palghar Police Station. After the police report was
received, DIG (Prisons), Aurangabad passed the order dated 3 rd
1 of 4
jdk 2 7.crwp.3417.16.j.doc
May, 2016 stating that if the petitioner is willing to spend the
period of furlough outside Palghar District and if he is willing to
furnish a suitable and competent surety from the area in which
he intends to spend the period of furlough, his case for
granting furlough would be considered. However, the
petitioner stated that he had no relation outside Palghar,
hence, his application be considered favourably and he be
granted furlough. In view of this fact, the application of the
petitioner for furlough was rejected by the order dated 16 th July,
2016.
3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is from Adivasi community and it is not possible
for the petitioner to furnish surety from some other district. It
is further submitted that co-accused Sanjay Soman was
granted furlough by order dated 8.6.2016 based on the police
report of the very same police station i.e. Palghar Police
Station. Co-accused Sanjay Soman was allowed to spend his
period of furlough in Palghar District itself. It is an admitted
fact that co-accused Sanjay Soman has enjoyed his furlough
leave and thereafter reported back to the prison in time.
2 of 4
jdk 3 7.crwp.3417.16.j.doc
Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner should also be
allowed to spend his period of furlough in Palghar District and
he be allowed to furnish surety from Palghar district. Mr.
Dinesh Polekar who is the nephew of the petitioner, is willing to
stand as surety for the petitioner.
4 Looking to the fact that the co-accused, who is
similarly situated as the present petitioner, has been released
on furlough and allowed to spend his period of furlough in
Palghar district based on the police report of Palghar Police
Station itself, we are inclined to set aside the order dated 16 th
July, 2016 rejecting the application of the petitioner for
furlough and the petitioner be allowed to spend the period of
furlough in Palghar district and he be allowed to furnish surety
of his nephew or surety of some other suitable and competent
person. The petitioner be released on furlough as per the rules
and usual terms and conditions as set out by the sanctioning
authority.
5 Rule is made absolute in above terms.
3 of 4
jdk 4 7.crwp.3417.16.j.doc
6 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner
who is in Nasik Road Central Prison. The fees to be paid to the
appointed advocate are quantified at Rs. 2,500/-.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
4 of 4
