Sunil Laxman Gode vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9314 Bom

                                                                                   8. cri wp 4683-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4683 OF 2017


            Sunil Laxman Ghode                                            .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                               .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate (appointed) 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 5, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

5.11.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated

20.4.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred

an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated

20.9.2017, hence, this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 2





                                                             8. cri wp 4683-17.doc

3. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected

mainly on the ground that in the year 2010, when the

petitioner was released on parole, he did not report back to

the prison in time and he had to be traced and arrested by

the police and brought back to the prison. On this occasion,

there was overstay of 146 days on the part of the petitioner.

Thereafter, the petitioner was released on furlough on

22.1.2014 for a period of 14 days, however, the petitioner

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

overstay of 144 days on the part of the petitioner. In this

view of the matter, it was apprehended by the Authorities

that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he will not

report back to the prison in time and he may abscond.

Looking to the past conduct of the petitioner, it cannot be

said that this apprehension is without any basis, hence, we

are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                    [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 2