Irun Ilichand Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 6458 Bom

osk                                                                                                             27-wp-2550-2017.odt


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 2550 OF 2017

Irun Ilichand Chavan                                                              ...           Petitioner
            V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                                          ...           Respondent

• Ms.Rohini M. Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner. • Ms.G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.

DATE : 22nd AUGUST, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) :

1]                     Heard both sides. 


2]                     The   Petitioner   preferred   an   application   for   furlough   on

20/10/2016. The said application was rejected by order dated

12/01/2017. Being aggrieved thereby the Petitioner preferred an

appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 4/5/2017,

hence this petition.

3] The reason for rejecting the application of the Petitioner

for furlough is that, in the year 2012, when the Petitioner was

released on furlough, he reported back one day late to the prison.

Thereafter, in the year 2013, when the Petitioner was released on

osk 27-wp-2550-2017.odt

parole, he did not report back to the prison in time and there was

delay of 96 days in reporting back to the prison. Hence, it was

apprehended that, if the Petitioner was released on furlough, he may

not report back to the prison. As far as this apprehension is concerned,

Ms.Dandekar pointed out that in the year 2013, when the Petitioner

was released on parole, though there was over stay of 96 days, he

reported back to the prison on his own and it is not a case that Police

had arrested the Petitioner and brought him back to the prison. She

also pointed out that there is no adverse report regarding the conduct

of the Petitioner in the prison.

4] Looking to the above facts and other circumstances, we

are inclined to grant furlough to the Petitioner. The Petitioner to be

released on furlough on the usual terms and conditions as set out by

the competent authority.

5]                     Rule is made absolute in above terms. 


6]                     Office to communicate this order to the Petitioner, who is

in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. 


(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.)    (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)