Yunus Mehaboob Nadaf vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9791 Bom

                                                                                   4. cri wp 4965-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4965 OF 2017


            Yunus Mehaboob Nadaf                                          .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                               .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Ujwal R. Agandsurve Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. Arfan Sait          APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
                                              M.S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

6.1.2017. The said application was rejected by order dated

18.4.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred

an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated

3.11.2017, hence, this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 2





                                                             4. cri wp 4965-17.doc

3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came to

be rejected mainly on the ground that in the year 2010,

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

the prison in time and after 1141 days, he was arrested by

the police and brought back to the prison. The record of the

petitioner shows that on 8.12.2010, he was released on

parole. As stated earlier, the petitioner was brought back to

the prison by the police after 1141 days. In view of these

facts, the Authorities apprehended 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 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. However, if the petitioner prefers a fresh

application for furlough, the same to be decided on its own

merits..

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




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 2