Javed Nurul Hasan Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 4545 Bom

 jdk                                                   1                                              7.crwp.2119.17.j.doc


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2017


Javed Noor Hasan Khan                                                           ]
C/10439, Circle No. 1 /4                                                        ]
Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik.                                             ].. Petitioner

                    Vs.

The State of Maharashtra                                                        ].. Respondent



                             ....
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Ms. M.H.Mhatre A.P.P. for the State
                             ....


                                        CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
                                                SANDEEP K.SHINDE, JJ.

DATED : JULY 14, 2017

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

1                   Heard both sides.



2                   The         petitioner preferred an application on 7.3.2016

for furlough.                    The application was rejected by order dated

7.10.2016. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an

appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 31.1.2017.

Being aggrieved by both these orders, the present petition has

1 of 3

jdk 2 7.crwp.2119.17.j.doc

been preferred by the petitioner.

3 A perusal of the order of rejection shows that the main

reason for rejecting the application for furlough was that the

petitioner is involved in six separate cases. Ms. Dandekar, the

learned advocate for the petitioner, pointed out that the

petitioner is not involved in six different cases but he is

convicted in one case under six different charges. In view of

the statement made by Ms. Dandekar, we went through the jail

record of the petitioner. The said jail record shows that the

petitioner is involved in CR No. 8 of 2013 by ATS Kala Chowky in

which he has been convicted under Sections 216, 419 r.w. 34,

420 r.w. 34, 463 r.w. 34, 468 r.w. 34 and 471 r.w. 34 of IPC,

hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner is undergoing

sentence in six different cases, hence, it is on this ground alone,

the orders dated 7.10.2016 and 31.1.2017 deserve to be set

aside. However, it is noticed that in addition, it is stated that

the surety proposed by the petitioner is not found competent

and suitable. No reason has been set out as to how the surety

is not found competent or suitable. Another reason for rejecting

the application of the petitioner for furlough was that if he is

2 of 3

jdk 3 7.crwp.2119.17.j.doc

released on furlough, he may abscond. No material has been

pointed out to us for the respondents to reach such a

conclusion.

4 In view of the above facts, the orders dated 7.10.2016

and 31.1.2017 are set aside. The petitioner to be released on

furlough on usual terms and conditions as set out by the

competent authorities. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

Petition is disposed of.

[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

kandarkar

3 of 3