Bombay High Court
Takku Singh S/O Ajit Singh Kalyani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 July, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
* 1/4 * 35-WP-2030-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2030 OF 2017
Takku Singh ......Petitioner
V/s.
The State & Anr. .......Respondents
Ms. Harjeet Kaur Bhagwant Singh , Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. M.H.Mhatre, APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : July 6, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
Heard both sides.
2 Petitioner preferred an application for furlough
on 9.10.2016. The said application was rejected by order
dated 10.1.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, petitioner
preferred an appeal. Appeal came to be rejected by order
dated 15.4.2017, hence, this petition.
3 The application of the petitioner for furlough
Shivgan
* 2/4 * 35-WP-2030-2017.doc
came to be rejected on the ground that in the year 2004
when the petitioner was released on furlough, he did not
report back to the prison in time and the petitioner was
arrested by police and brought back to prison. On this
occasion, there was over stay of 93 days. Second ground
on which the application of the petitioner for furlough
came to be rejected was that in 2010 when the petitioner
was released on furlough, he did not report back to the
prison in time and there was over stay of 179 days.
4 As far as the first ground is concerned, it is seen
that over stay was in the year 2004 when the petitioner
was arrested by the police and brought back to the prison.
However, jail record of the petitioner shows that on
23.10.2008, he was released on furlough for 14 days and
he reported back to the prison on due date on his own.
Thereafter, petitioner was released on furlough on
28.4.2009 for a period of 14 days and the petitioner
reported back to the prison on due date on his own.
Thereafter, the petitioner was released on furlough on
2.12.2009 for a period of 14 days. On this occasion also,
Shivgan
* 3/4 * 35-WP-2030-2017.doc
petitioner reported back to the prison on his own on due
date. Thus, it is seen that as far as over stay in the year
2004 is concerned, it is no longer good ground because
thereafter on 3 occasions when the petitioner was released
on furlough, he reported back to the prison on due date on
his own.
5 The second ground for rejecting the furlough
application is that in the year 2010 when the petitioner was
released on furlough, he did not report back to the prison in
time. It is seen that though there was over stay on the part
of the petitioner, petitioner reported back to the prison on
his own and it is not the case that the petitioner was
arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. It is
seen that after 2010, the petitioner has not been released
on furlough by the authorities.
6 The petitioner has already undergone actual
imprisonment of almost 14 and half years. The learned APP
on instructions states that conduct of the petitioner in
prison is satisfactory. Looking to the record of the
Shivgan
* 4/4 * 35-WP-2030-2017.doc
petitioner, we are of the opinion that one chance may be
given to the petitioner and he be released on furlough,
hence, the following order is passed:
(I) Petitioner be released on furlough on the
usual terms and conditions as set out by
the jail authorities.
7 Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)
Shivgan
