Vijay @ Bapu Chimaji Bhutekar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 9121 Bom

                                                          23. Cri. WP No.1701-2015.doc

DDR

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1701 OF 2015
       Vijay @ Bapu Chimaji Bhutekar                ...Petitioner
             vs.
       The State of Maharashtra                     ...Respondent
                                  ...........

Ms. Mansi S. Bane, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner.

Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. - State.

...........

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

                                 DATE        :     28th NOVEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.):-

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough

on 14/1/2014. The said application was rejected by order dated

18/9/2014. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an

appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 26/12/2014.

Hence this petition.

23. Cri. WP No.1701-2015.doc

3. The authorities were earlier inclined to grant

furlough to the petitioner. However, in view of the police report,

it was apprehended that there would be danger to the life of the

complainant Sayed Khan. The reason was that Sayed Khan is

residing at Baigan Wadi, Mumbai - 400 043 and the petitioner's

house is also situated in Mumbai - 400 043. In such case, it was

apprehended that if the petitioner is released on furlough, there

would be danger to the life of the complainant. In view of these

facts, the authorities were inclined to release the petitioner on

furlough but on the condition that during the period he is on

furlough leave, he will reside 200 kms. away from the place of

the incident. The petitioner expressed his inability to comply

with the said condition, hence, his application for furlough was

rejected by order dated 18/9/2014. The only ground for

rejecting was that there would danger to the life of the

complainant and as the petitioner was not willing to stay 200

kms. away, it would be dangerous to release the petitioner on

furlough.

23. Cri. WP No.1701-2015.doc

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions

from the wife of the petitioner, who is present in the Court states

that the married daughter of the petitioner i.e. Mrs. Sunita

Rahul Doke is residing at Ozar, Nashik and if the petitioner is

released on furlough, he will reside at his daughter's house at

Ozar, Nashik. We have perused the nominal roll of the petitioner.

It shows that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is satisfactory.

Looking to all these facts, we are inclined to release the

petitioner on furlough for a period of 14 days on the condition

that during the period of furlough he will reside in Nashik and

he will not enter Mumbai. The petitioner will furnish the surety

of his son-in-law who is staying at Nashik. The petitioner shall

report at nearest police station at Ozar, Nashik, every alternate

day. In addition, the authorities may impose any reasonable

conditions as deemed fit.

5. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

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