Abhijeet @ Chochya Ashok Sangare vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 6237 Bom

                                                                         903.WP2933_2016.doc
Vidya Amin
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                      
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 2933 OF 2016

             Abhijeet @ Chochya Ashok Sangare                  ... Petitioner




                                                              
                   Vs.
             The State of Maharashtra                          ... Respondent

             Ms. Kirti Godbole i/b. Mrs. Indrayani Koparkar, Advocate for the petitioner.




                                                             
             Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the respondent/State.

                                     CORAM:      SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                                 MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2016

ORAL JUDGEMENT: (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 25 th

February, 2015. The said application came to be granted and the

petitioner was released on furlough on 2nd July, 2015 for a period of 14

days. The petitioner had to surrender on 17th July, 2015. Meanwhile, on

4th July, 2015, the petitioner preferred an application for extension of

furlough by a further period of 14 days. The said application is admittedly

made in time. The said application came to be rejected on 21 st July, 2015.

The petitioner was communicated the order of rejection on 21 st July, 2015

and the petitioner surrendered on 22nd July, 2015. As the application for

extension of furlough was not granted, it was held that there was overstay

903.WP2933_2016.doc

on the part of the petitioner by 5 days. Hence, his remission was cut by

one day for each day of overstay, i.e., 5 days remission was cut. In

addition, the security deposit of Rs.25,000/-, which was deposited by the

petitioner, was forfeited. Being aggrieved by the forfeiture of security

deposit of Rs.25,000/- and cutting of remission of total 5 days, this Petition

has been preferred.

2. The application of the petitioner for extension of furlough came to be

rejected on the ground that police report was adverse and father of the

petitioner was available in the house to take care of the mother of the

petitioner. The petitioner preferred an application for extension of furlough

on 4th July, 2015, as his mother was suffering from hypertension with

severe giddiness. The petitioner has annexed the medical certificates

dated 4th July, 2015 and 19th July, 2015, which show that his mother was

suffering from hypertension with severe giddiness from 4th July, 2015 and

she was advised to take rest. The order of rejection shows that the

genuineness of the medical certificates is not doubted. In fact the

statement of the doctor was also recorded, which shows that if she does

not take treatment and does not take rest, she may also get a heart attack.

3. As far as the issue of father of the petitioner being available in the

home to take care of the mother of the petitioner is concerned, the father

903.WP2933_2016.doc

was of advanced age and hence it was not possible for him to run around

to the doctors, hospitals etc. and provide necessary treatment and to look

after the mother of the petitioner.

4. It is seen that the police report shows that the medical certificates

are genuine. In addition, the police report shows that the petitioner had

reported twice to the police station everyday and during the period that

the petitioner was on furlough, no adverse act was done by the petitioner.

Moreover, it is seen that the order of rejection was communicated to the

petitioner on 21st July, 2015 and on the very next day he surrendered back

to the prison. Looking to the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the

opinion that the order of forfeiture of security deposit and cutting of

remission ought to be set aside. The security deposit of Rs. 25,000/-

which has been forfeited be returned back to the petitioner. So also the

order of cutting of remission of one day for each day of overstay is set

aside. However, the petitioner be issued a warning in relation to his

overstay.

5. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

         (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)                          (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)