Sandeep Balaram Gondhali vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 2216 Bom

                                                                                   27.wp 1397.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1397 OF 2017

                 Sandeep Balaram Gondhali                            ..Petitioner
                      Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra                            .. Respondent

                 Ms.Rohini M. Dandekar, for the Petitioner.
                 Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP  for State.


                                               CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                                              M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

04th MAY, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V .K.TAHILRAMANI) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough.

The said application was granted. Pursuant to the said

application, petitioner was released on furlough on 12/08/2015

to 26/08/2015 i.e. for a period of 14 days. Thereafter the

petitioner preferred an application for extension of furlough on

17/08/2015 seeking extension of 14 days i.e. from 27/08/2015

to 10/09/2015. The said application came to be rejected on

27.wp 1397.17.doc

06/08/2016. Hence, this Petition.

3. It is an admitted fact that the application for

extension was made within time. It is further an admitted fact

that till the petitioner surrendered, the order of rejection was

not communicated to him. As soon as extended period of 14

days was over, the petitioner surrendered on his own at prison

on 11/09/2015. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that if the petitioner had been informed of his rejection, he

would have immediately surrendered back to the prison. She

further submitted the reason that the petitioner sought

extension was that he himself was unwell and he was suffering

from viral fever.

4. It is not controverted that the petitioner was

suffering from viral fever as mentioned in medical certificate.

However, his application came to be rejected only on the ground

that the petitioner was being treated on OPD basis and illness

was not so serious that the petitioner could not report back to

27.wp 1397.17.doc

the prison and take medical treatment in prison. Looking to the

fact that it is not controverted that petitioner was indeed unwell

and looking to the fact that the petitioner himself had

surrendered back to the prison on his own as soon as 14 days

period was over and looking to the fact that his conduct in

prison has been good, we extend period of furlough by a period

of 14 days i.e. from 27/08/2015 to 10/09/2015. Any prison

punishment imposed on account of overstay is set aside. The

security deposit if forfeited be returned back to the petitioner.

5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Office to

communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Kolhapur

Central prison, Kalamba.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)