Digambar Rangrao Girigosavi vs Sub-Divisional Police Officer ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5153 Bom

Rane                             * 1/4 *             WP-2384-2017
                                                         27.7.2017

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2384 OF 2017


Mr. Digambar Rangrao Girigosavi
Kolhapur Central Prison,
(C-5645)                                                ...Petitioner
     V/s.
Sub-Divisional Police Officer
and Ors.                                                ....Respondents

                                     ------


Mr. Prosper               D'souza,   Advocate   appointed           for      the
petitioner.

Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for respondent, State.



                 CORAM :-            SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &

                                     SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :- 27TH JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for

Rane * 2/4 * WP-2384-2017 27.7.2017

furlough on 25th July, 2016. The said application was

rejected by order dated 5th January, 2017. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.

The Appeal was dismissed by order dated 31st March,

2017. Hence, this petition.

3. The application of the petitioner for furlough

came to be rejected on the ground that in 2015 when the

petitioner was released on furlough, he reported back to

the prison 13 days after the due date. There was overstay

on the part of the petitioner of 13 days. The second

ground on which the application of the petitioner for

furlough came to be rejected is that in the year 2015 when

he was released on parole there was overstay on his part

of 35 days.

4. As far as the first ground is concerned, it is

seen that this Court by order dated 1st February, 2017 in

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2017 preferred by the petitioner,

extended the earlier period of furlough. Thus, it cannot

Rane * 3/4 * WP-2384-2017 27.7.2017

be said that on the first occasion that, there was overstay

of 13 days on the part of the petitioner. Thus, this ground

has no substance.

5. As far as the second ground for rejection of the

application of the petitioner for furlough is concerned, the

ground stated is that there was delay of 35 days on the

part of the petitioner in reporting back to the prison when

he was released in the year 2015. No doubt, there was

delay of 35 days in reporting back to the prison. However,

it is seen that, it is not a case where the petitioner had

absconded and the police traced him and arrested him and

brought him back to the prison but he has reported back

to the prison on his own. The jail record of the petitioner

shows that, his conduct in the prison is satisfactory. In

view of these facts, we are inclined to grant furlough to the

petitioner for a period of 14 days. As the application of

the petitioner is dated 25th July, 2017 i.e. prior to the

Notification dated 26th August, 2016 wherein the furlough

period has been extended to 28 days, the earlier rule

Rane * 4/4 * WP-2384-2017 27.7.2017

would apply to the petitioner. Hence, he is being released

on furlough for 14 days. The petitioner to be released on

furlough for a period of 14 days on the usual terms and

conditions as set out by the competent authorities. Rule is

made absolute in above terms.

6. Office to communicate this order to the

petitioner who is in Kolhapur Central Prison.

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