Ritesh @ Karan Rashmikant Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8650 Bom

 jdk                                                1                                              10.crwp.4050.17.j.doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4050 OF 2017


C/8572 Ritesh @ Karan
Rashmikant Pawar,
Nashik Road Central Prison,
Nasik                                                                           .. Petitioner

                    Vs.

The State of Maharashtra                                                        .. Respondent



                             ....
Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for State
                             ....



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

DATED : NOVEMBER 13, 2017

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

1                   Heard both sides.



2                   The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

25.8.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated

1 of 4

jdk 2 10.crwp.4050.17.j.doc

1.4.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal.

The appeal was dismissed by order dated 11.8.2017, hence,

this petition.

3 The application of the petitioner for furlough came to

be rejected on the ground that if the petitioner is released on

furlough, he will abscond. The second ground on which the

application of the petitioner for furlough was rejected, was that

if he is released on furlough, there may be a law and order

problem. The third ground on which the application of the

petitioner was rejected was that the police report was adverse.

The fourth ground on which the application of the petitioner was

rejected was that there is an appeal pending before a higher

forum.

4 As far as the first two grounds are concerned, jail

record of the petitioner shows that he was released on parole in

the year 2014 and he has not absconded but he has reported

back to the prison on the due date on his own. This shows that

there is no tendency on the part of the petitioner to abscond.

During the period that the petitioner was on parole, there is no

2 of 4

jdk 3 10.crwp.4050.17.j.doc

record to show that he had indulged in any illegal activities.

Thus, the second ground on which the application of the

petitioner for furlough has been rejected, is without any basis.

5 As far as the third ground is concerned, on the last

occasion when the petitioner was released on parole, he has not

absconded but he reported back on the due date to the prison

on his own. During the period the petitioner was on parole, the

petitioner has not indulged in any illegal activities. It is further

stated that the conduct of the petitioner is good in prison. In

view of the above facts, it appears that the police report is the

usual police report prepared without application of mind, hence,

the same cannot be taken into consideration.

6 As far as the last ground for rejecting the application

for furlough is concerned i.e. the appeal preferred by the

petitioner is pending before higher forum, this provision was

introduced by Notification dated 26.8.2016 and the application

of the petitioner was prior to that, thus, this Notification cannot

be made retrospectively applicable to the petitioner. Hence,

this ground also could not be available to reject the application

3 of 4

jdk 4 10.crwp.4050.17.j.doc

of the petitioner for furlough.

7 Looking to the above facts, we are inclined to grant

furlough to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner to be

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

and conditions as set out by the jail authorities. Petition is

allowed. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

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

kandarkar

4 of 4