Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Yogesh Bhau Gurav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 2023 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 2023 Bom
Judgement Date : 26 April, 2017

Bombay High Court
Yogesh Bhau Gurav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 26 April, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                          25. wp 1413.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1413 OF 2017

                 Yogesh Bhau Gurav
                 Aged : 30 years, residing at
                 C/o. Bhau Dhagdu Gurav,
                 Karvenagar, Pune - 411 052
                 and presently lodged in Yerwada
                 Central Prison vide Prison No. C- 17293            .. Petitioner

                         Vs.

                 1.  The State of Maharashtra 
                 through Office of Public Prosecutor 

                 2.  The Inspector General of Prison
                 Pune Western Zone, Pune.

                 3.  The Deputy Inspector,
                 General of Prison, Pune,
                 Western Zone, Pune - 411 001.

                 4.  The Superintendent,
                 Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.

                 5.  The Senior Inspector of Police,
                 Dattawadi Police Station                           .. Respondents

                 Mrs. Harjeet Kaur Bhagwant Singh, for the Petitioner.
                 Mrs.G. P. Mulekar, APP  for State.

                                               CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                                              M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

26th APRIL, 2017

25. wp 1413.17.doc

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.

V .K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough

on 30/06/2016. The said application came to be rejected by

order dated 23/11/2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner preferred an Appeal. The Appeal was dismissed by

order dated 09/03/2017. Hence, this Petition.

3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came

to be rejected mainly on the ground that if the petitioner is

released on furlough, there is possibility of danger to the life of

the witnesses. 2nd ground is that the petitioner is involved in

two serious offences relating to body and 3rd ground is that if the

petitioner is released on furlough, he will abscond.

4. As far as first ground is concerned, the order of

rejection shows that witnesses are not residing within the

jurisdiction of Bhor police station, whereas it is stated that the

petitioner will be residing within the jurisdiction of Bhor police

25. wp 1413.17.doc

station. Hence, it is not as if the petitioner would be residing in

the same area as the witnesses.

5. As far as 2nd ground is concerned that the petitioner

is involved in two serious cases relating to bodily offence, it is

seen that 1st case is the present case and 2nd case is C.R.No. 65 of

2007 which is under sections 324 and 504 of IPC. Both these

offences cannot be said to be serious in nature.

6. As far as 3rd ground is concerned that the petitioner

will abscond if he is released on furlough, it is seen that in

C.R.No. 65 of 2007, the petitioner has been released on bail by

the concerned Court. Hence, we find no merit in this ground.

7. Looking to the above facts, we are inclined to grant

furlough to the petitioner. The petitioner to be released on

furlough for a period of 28 days on usual terms and conditions

as set out by the Competent Authority. In addition, the

condition is imposed on the petitioner that during the period he

is on furlough, he will reside within the jurisdiction of Bhor

25. wp 1413.17.doc

police station and he will not go outside jurisdiction of Bhor

police station and in addition, he will report every alternate day

to Bhor police station.

8. In view of the above, the Petition is allowed. Rule is

made absolute in the above terms.

9. It is stated that the petitioner is at present in Nasik

Road Central prison. Office to communicate this order to the

petitioner who is in Nasik Road Central prison.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter