Bombay High Court
Shabbir Shamshuddin Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 December, 2017
6. cri wp 4427-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4427 OF 2017
Shabbir Shamshuddin Shaikh .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on
26.9.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated
22.12.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order
dated 3.4.2017, hence, this petition.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
6. cri wp 4427-17.doc
3. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected
mainly on the ground that in view of the election of Pune
Municipal Corporation, if the petitioner is released on
furlough, there may be a law and order problem. It is to be
noted that this was in the year 2016. Today, we are in the
year 2017 and there are no elections at present.
4. The second ground on which the application of the
petitioner came to be rejected is that in the year 2014 when
he was released on furlough, there was overstay of 3 days
and he was arrested by the police and brought back to the
prison. As far as this aspect is concerned, the record shows
that when the petitioner was released on furlough in the year
2014, he was arrested by Bibewadi Police Station in C.R. No.
72/2014 on 28.5.2014 and he was brought back to the prison
on 10.6.2014. It is to be noted that the petitioner has been
acquitted in the said case. Thus, it is noticed that if the
petitioner had not been arrested on 28.5.2014, he would
have reported back to the prison in time i.e on 6.6.2014.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
6. cri wp 4427-17.doc
Thus, this ground is also not a good ground to reject the
application of the petitioner for furlough.
5. The third ground on which the application of the
petitioner for furlough came to be rejected is that the surety
will not be able to keep a check on the petitioner if he is
released on furlough. As far as this aspect is concerned, the
jail record of the petitioner shows that on earlier two
occasions, the petitioner was released on furlough i.e on
27.12.2012 and 18.12.2013 and on both the occasions, he
reported back to the prison on his own in time. At present
also, the same surety is proposed who was a surety on two
earlier occasions. As far as the overstay when the petitioner
was released on furlough on 24.5.2014 is concerned, it is
seen that it was not on account of any act of the petitioner.
Thus, this ground is also not a good ground.
6. The other grounds on which the application of the
petitioner came to be rejected are general grounds for which
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
6. cri wp 4427-17.doc
there is no basis except the grounds mentioned above.
Thus, looking to the fact that on two earlier occasions i.e in
the year 2012 and 2013, when the petitioner was released
on furlough, he reported back to the prison on his own in
time and looking to the other facts and circumstances of this
case, we are inclined to release the petitioner on furlough.
Hence, the orders dated 22.12.2016 and 3.4.2017 are set
aside.
7. The petitioner to be released on furlough on usual
terms and conditions as imposed by the Competent
Authority.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
9. Office to communicate this oder to the petitioner who is
in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
