Preetam Thakaram Lalgude vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 5030 Bom

                                  * 1/3 *    26-WP-2758-2017.doc

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2758 OF 2017


Preetam Thakaram Lalgude                                   ......Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                   .......Respondent


Ms. Ankita Naik with Ms. Indrayani Koparkar, Advocates for
Petitioner.
Ms. R.M.Gadhavi , APP for Respondent-State.


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

                          DATE     :   July 25, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.]


1                Heard both sides.



2                Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable

forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

3 The petitioner preferred an application for

furlough on 10.2.2017. Application was rejected by order

dated 6.3.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, petitioner

preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order

Shivgan

* 2/3 * 26-WP-2758-2017.doc

dated 12.6.2017. Being aggrieved by the said order, this

petition has been filed.

4 Appeal of the petitioner came to be rejected on

the ground that on 13.6.2016 when he was released on

parole for 30 days, he did not report back to the prison on

the due date, i.e., on 12.8.2016 and there was delay of 29

days on the part of the petitioner in reporting back to the

prison. In view of this overstay, it was apprehended that if

the petitioner was released on furlough, he would not

report back to prison and he may abscond.

5 As far as apprehension of absconding is

concerned, it is seen that on 13.6.2016 when the petitioner

was released on parole, no doubt, there was overstay of 29

days but the petitioner reported back to the prison on his

own and it is not the case that he was arrested by the

police and brought back to the prison.

6 As far as the aspect of overstay of 29 days is

concerned, it is seen that thereafter by order dated

Shivgan

* 3/3 * 26-WP-2758-2017.doc

15.6.2017, parole period has been extended by period of

30 days. Jail chart of the petitioner also shows that when

parole was granted on 13.6.2016 for 30 days, thereafter,

parole period was extended by further period of 30 days

and within that time, the petitioner reported back to the

prison on his own. The said jail chart is taken on record and

marked 'X' for Identification.

7 Looking to the above facts, the order rejecting

application of the petitioner for furlough and the order

dated 12.6.2016 cannot be sustained. Hence, the said

orders are set aside. The petitioner to be released on

furlough on usual terms and conditions as set out by jail

authorities.

8 Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)

Shivgan