Bombay High Court
Adilaxmi Sudhakar Reddy vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 November, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
6. cri wp 2427-17 & appw 451-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2427 OF 2017
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 451 OF 2017
Sashikumar Ramaswamy Harijan .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Mr. Santosh S. Musale Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
Mr. Vinay J. Bhanushali Advocate for the Applicant in Cri. Appln. No.
451 of 2017
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel appearing for the
intervenor who is the wife of the deceased.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on
11.3.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
6. cri wp 2427-17 & appw 451-17.doc
22.12.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order
dated 18.3.2017, hence, this petition.
3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came to
be rejected on the ground that the police report shows that if
the petitioner is released on furlough, there is danger to the
life of the complainant and the witnesses. It is also rejected
on the ground that when the brother of the petitioner was
released on furlough in the year 2014, he did not report back
in time to the prison and instead, he absconded, hence, it is
apprehended that if the application of the petitioner is
granted he will not report back to the prison and he will
abscond.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
furlough is a right and the petitioner has to be released on
furlough as a matter of right. As far as this submission is
concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of State of
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
6. cri wp 2427-17 & appw 451-17.doc
Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar1 has
observed that, ".......... But release on furlough cannot be
said to be an absolute right of the prisoner as culled out from
Rule. 17." Rule 17 reads as under:-
"17. Nothing in these rules shall be construed as conferring a
legal right on a prisoner to claim release on furlough."
5. Learned counsel for the intervenor pointed out that the
petitioner wants to spend his period of furlough in Dahisar
and the complainant and other witnesses are staying close to
Dahisar and they apprehend danger to their life. Learned
counsel for the intervenor placed reliance on the post
mortem report of the husband of the intervenor to show that
he had sustained 16 injuries. He stated that the intervenor is
a young helpless woman and she has two minor children.
She apprehends danger to her life. So also the police report
shows that if the petitioner is released on furlough, there
would be danger to the life of the complainant and the
witnesses. Looking to the apprehension of the wife of the
1 AIR 2006 SC 2471 : 2006 ALL M.R. (Cri) 1839 (S.C.)
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
6. cri wp 2427-17 & appw 451-17.doc
deceased, the police report and the orders of the Authorities,
we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.
6. As we have heard learned counsel for the intervenor at
length in this petition, hence, nothing survives in the criminal
application, the same is also disposed of.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
