Chetan Ramdas Dumbare vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 6376 Bom

                                                                                 10. cri wp 3553-16.doc


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




                                                                                                
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3553 OF 2016




                                                                        
            Chetan Ramdas Dumbare                                        .. Petitioner

                                 Versus




                                                                       
            The State of Maharashtra                                     .. Respondent

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




                                                            
            Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. Arfan Sait      APP for the State
                                              
                                    ...................
                                             
                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE : OCTOBER 26, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

13.4.2015. The said application came to be rejected on

10.11.2015. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed

by order dated 9.3.2016, hence, this petition wherein the

petitioner has prayed for furlough.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                   1 of 3



                                                             10. cri wp 3553-16.doc

3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came to

be rejected mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that

on 22.9.2012, when the petitioner was released on parole, he

did not report back in time. Ultimately, the police had to

trace the petitioner, arrest him and bring him back to prison.

The petitioner was arrested and brought back to prison on

17.7.2014. Thus, there was overstay of 631 days. In view of

this fact, it was apprehended that if the petitioner is released

on furlough, he will not report back to the prison in time and

he will abscond.

The second ground on which the application of the

petitioner was rejected is that the petitioner is involved in a

case under Section 394 of IPC, hence, in view of Rule 4(2) of

the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959, the

petitioner was not entitled to be released on furlough. Rule

4(2) provides that the prisoner convicted of the offences

under Sections 392 to 402 of IPC shall not be granted

furlough. In addition, the conduct of the petitioner in jail has

not been satisfactory. In view of these facts, the application

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

10. cri wp 3553-16.doc

of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected.

4. In view of the fact that there was overstay of 631 days,

it cannot be said that the apprehension of the authorities

that the petitioner, if released on furlough, will not report

back in time and will abscond, is without any basis.

Moreover, in view of Rule 4(2) and the other facts and

circumstances of this case, we cannot find any fault with the

authorities for rejecting the application of the petitioner for

furlough.

5. In view of above, we are not inclined to interfere,

hence, Rule is discharged.

6. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who

is in Yerawada Central Prison, Pune.

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




    jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         3 of 3