Babu @ Shashikant Tukaram Kalambe vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8651 Bom

 jdk                                                  1                                              9.crwp.4049.17.j.doc



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4049 OF 2017

Babu alias Shashikant Tukaram
Kalambe C/10517                                                                 .. Petitioner

                    Vs.

The State of Maharashtra                                                        .. Respondent


                              ....
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar A.P.P. for the 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.

The application was rejected by order dated 3.3.2017. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The

appeal was dismissed by order dated 7.8.2017, hence, this

petition.

                                                                                                    1   of  2





              jdk                                                  2                                              9.crwp.4049.17.j.doc

            3                   The application of the petitioner for furlough came to

be rejected in view of the fact that his appeal is pending before

a higher forum. By Notification dated 26.8.2016, The Prisons

(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 came to be

amended. The said Notification provides that if the appeal

preferred by a convict is pending before a higher forum and bail

has not been granted by the Court in the said appeal, then that

convict cannot be granted furlough. In view of the Notification

dated 26.8.2016, we cannot find any error with the authorities

for rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough,

hence, no case is made out for interference. Rule is discharged.

Petition is dismissed.

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

kandarkar

2 of 2