Mubarak Rahematulla Maniyar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 2384 Bom

                                                                                     7. cri wp 1526-17.doc


RMA      
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1526 OF 2017


            Mubarak Rahematulla Maniyar                                     .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                 .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Ms. Naima Shaikh Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedhia  APP for the State
                                                   ...................



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

DATE : MAY 5, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

23.3.2016. The said application came to be rejected by

order dated 19.8.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal was

dismissed by order dated 2.12.2016, hence, this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                      1 of 2





                                                                     7. cri wp 1526-17.doc

3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came to

be rejected on the ground that in 2008, when the petitioner

was released on furlough, he did not report back to the

prison in time and he absconded. Police then traced and

arrested him and brought him back to the prison.

Thereafter, in 2014, when the petitioner was released on

parole, he did not report back to the prison in time. Learned

APP further relied on the order of rejection which shows that

when the petitioner was released in the year 2014, the

petitioner committed an offence under Sections 395, 384,

386, 364 and other sections of IPC. The said case is pending.

4. Looking to the above facts, it is seen that the petitioner

has abused the facilities given to him, not only did he not

report back to the prison in time, but when he was released

he has committed another offence which is of serious

nature. In this view of the matter, we cannot find fault in

rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough. No

interference is called for. Rule is discharged.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ]                       [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]



jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                2 of 2