Balu Dattu Pawade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 6107 Bom

     jdk                                                  1                                              1.crwp.1556.16.j.doc

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                                                      
                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1556 OF 2016

    Balu Dattu Pawade                                                               ]




                                                                                              
    Age 45 years,                                                                   ]
    At post Darodi, Tal. Parner                                                     ]
    Dist. Ahmednagar,                                                               ]
    Prisoner No. C/14154                                                            ]




                                                                                             
    (At present in Yerawada Central                                                 ]
    Prison, Pune.)                                                                  ].. Petitioner

              Vs.
    1. The State of Maharashtra         ]




                                                                         
       (Through Yerawada Central Prison ]
       Pune.)                           ]     
                                        ]
    2. Inspector General of Prisons,    ]
       Pune.                            ].. Respondents
                                             
                                   ....
    Ms. Kirti Godbole Advocate i/b Mrs. Indrayani Koparkar
    Advocate for Petitioner
          

    Mr. H.J. Dedia 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. Rule. Rule is made returnable

forthwith. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing.

2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough.

The said application came to be rejected by order dated

1 of 2

jdk 2 1.crwp.1556.16.j.doc

7.9.2015. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an

appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated

7.1.2016. One of the reasons for rejecting the application of

the petitioner for furlough is that the surety suggested by the

petitioner is the father of the deceased girl. The second reason

for rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough is that

in the year 2009 when the petitioner was released on furlough,

he did not report back in time and he absconded. Ultimately,

he had to be traced and arrested by the police and was

brought back to the prison. There was overstay of 166 days on

the part of the petitioner. In view of this fact, it was

apprehended that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he

will abscond. Looking to the past history of the petitioner, it

cannot be said that this apprehension is without any basis.

Looking to the above facts, we are not inclined to interfere.

Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

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

kandarkar

2 of 2