Bombay High Court
Sachin Babulal Suryavanshi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 1 March, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
18. cri wp 531-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 531 OF 2017
Sachin Babulal Suryavanshi .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 1, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on
19.5.2015. The said application was granted by order dated
1.10.2015 and he was released on furlough for a period of 14
days that is from 4.11.2015 to 17.11.2015. Meanwhile on
6.11.2015, the petitioner preferred an application for
extension of furlough for a further period of 14 days. The
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
18. cri wp 531-17.doc
said application was rejected by order dated 17.12.2015,
hence, this petition.
3. Admittedly, the application of the petitioner for
extension of furlough was made within time. The petitioner
has sought extension on the ground that he was suffering
from bleeding hemorrhoid. The extension application of the
petitioner for furlough came to be rejected on the ground
that he could get treatment for his medical problem
anywhere and it was not necessary for him to remain out of
prison. The second reason why his application was rejected
is that the petitioner may pressurize the complainant and the
witnesses and the petitioner may indulge in illegal activities.
4. As far as the medical problem of the petitioner is
concerned, the genuineness of the medical certificate has
not been doubted. Jail record of the petitioner shows that on
22.8.2012, he was released on furlough and he reported
back to the prison on due date. Thereafter, he was released
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
18. cri wp 531-17.doc
on furlough on 6.3.2014 and he reported back to the prison
on due date. The petitioner was also released on parole on
18.2.2013 and he reported back on due date to the prison on
his own. During none of these occasions when the petitioner
was released either on furlough or parole, there is any record
to show that he has pressurized the complainant or the
witnesses or he has threatened any of them in any manner.
Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that during the
period when the petitioner was released either on furlough or
parole, he indulged in any illegal activities. Looking to all
these facts, and the fact that the genuineness of the medical
certificate has not been doubted, on humanitarian ground,
we are inclined to extend the period of furlough by a further
period of 14 days i.e from 18.11.2015 to 1.12.2015.
5. Any prison punishment imposed on account of overstay
is set aside.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
18. cri wp 531-17.doc
6. Security deposit if forfeited be returned back to the
petitioner.
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
8. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who
is lodged in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba.
[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
