Ramchandra Vitthal Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 9227 Bom

                                                                                   5. cri wp 4420-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4420 OF 2017


            Ramchandra Vitthal Patil                                      .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar   APP for the State
                                                   ...................



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

DATE : NOVEMBER 30, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on

25.9.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated

20.3.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred

an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated

11.8.2017, hence, this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 2





                                                             5. cri wp 4420-17.doc

3. One of the grounds for rejecting the application of the

petitioner for furlough is that the appeal preferred by the

petitioner against his conviction and sentence is pending

before the Supreme Court. By Notification dated 26.8.2016,

it is provided that if the appeal preferred by the prisoner is

pending before the higher court and the prisoner has not

been granted bail in the said matter, then such prisoner

would not be released on furlough. In view of the

Notification which is in force, no case is made out for

interference. Rule is discharged.

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




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 2