Irappa Subhash Sharmal @ Dhangar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6110 Bom

     jdk                                                  1                                              2.crwp.3430.16.j.doc




                                                                                                                      
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                              
                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3430 OF 2016


    Irappa Subhash Sharmal             ]




                                                                                             
    @ Dhangar                          ]
    Age 30 years, Occ: Service,        ]
    Residing at Behind Shivsena Shakha ]
    Sai Shraddha CHS,                  ]
    Ramgadh Nagar, Ganesh Gawde Road]




                                                                         
    Mulund (W), Mumbai.                ]
    At present in Nashik Central Jail, ]      
    Nashik                             ].. Petitioner

                        Vs.
                                             
    1. The State of Maharashtra          ]
       Through Learned Public Prosecutor ]
       High Court, Mumbai                ]
                                         ]
         


    2. The Superintendent,               ]
       Nashik Central Prison, Nashik     ]
      



                                         ]
    3. The Deputy Inspector General of   ]
       Police, State of Maharashtra      ]
       Aurangabad                        ]





                                         ]
    4. The Inspector General of Prisons, ]
       State of Maharashtra, Central     ]
       Building, Pune-411001             ].. Respondents





                                  ....
    Mr. Raju Vijay Parad Advocate for Petitioner
    Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
                                  ....




                                                                                                        1   of  3




             ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2016                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2016 00:39:54 :::
      jdk                                                  2                                              2.crwp.3430.16.j.doc




                                                                                                                      
                                            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.

The petitioner preferred an application for furlough.

The said application came to be rejected. Being aggrieved

thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal came

to be dismissed by order dated 2.7.2016.

3 The application of the petitioner for furlough came to

be rejected mainly on the ground that on 26.8.2014 when the

petitioner was released on furlough for a period of 14 days, he

did not report back to the prison in time. As the petitioner did

not report back to the prison in time, the police had to trace

him, arrest him and bring him back to the prison. There was

overstay on the part of the petitioner of 33 days. Based on

these facts, the authorities apprehend that if the petitioner is

again released on furlough, he will abscond and will not report

2 of 3

jdk 3 2.crwp.3430.16.j.doc

back to the prison. Looking to the past conduct of the

petitioner, it cannot be said that this apprehension is without

any basis, hence, we are not inclined to interfere. Petition is

dismissed. Rule is discharged.

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

kandarkar

3 of 3