Bombay High Court
Atul Ashok Deshmukh vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 5 October, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 14.crwp.2370.17.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2370 OF 2017
Shri. Atul Ashok Deshmukh ]
Aged 32 years, Occ: Nil ]
Resident of Deshmukhwadi, ]
Airoli village, Room No. 1697, ]
Navi Mumbai, At present undergoing ]
the sentence imposed upon him in ]
Nasik Road Central Prison. ].. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police, ]
Navi Mumbai, Dist. Thane ]
]
2. The Dy. Inspector General of ]
Prisons, Pune. Aurangabad ]
]
3. Superintendent of Prison, ]
Nashik Road Central Prison, ]
Nashik ]
]
4. The State of Maharashtra ].. Respondents
....
Mr. Rahul Arote Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
SHRI.M.S.KARNIK, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 05, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]:
1 Heard both sides.
1 of 5
jdk 2 14.crwp.2370.17.j.doc
2 The petitioner is seeking that he be released on
furlough for a period of 60 days. The petitioner had preferred
the application for furlough on 28.3.2016. At that time, the
prisoners were being released on furlough only for a period of
14 days with an extension of another 14 days if the facts and
circumstances so warrant. At no point of time past or present
furlough was ever granted for 60 days. In such case, it is not
possible to grant furlough for a period of sixty days. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appropriate
period of furlough be granted.
3 In relation to his furlough application dated 28.3.2016,
by order dated 27.5.2016, the petitioner was asked to furnish
surety who is residing 200 kms. away. This shows that the
petitioner was going to be released by the authorities on
furlough provided he furnishes surety who was residing 200
kms. away from the place the witnesses resided and obviously
the petitioner also had to reside 200 kms. away from the place
where the witnesses resided. Being aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner preferred Cri. Writ Petition No. 2569 of
2016 before this Court. By order dated 18.8.2016, the said writ
2 of 5
jdk 3 14.crwp.2370.17.j.doc
petition came to be disposed of and distance of 200 kms. was
reduced to 100 kms. However, even thereafter the application
of the petitioner came to be rejected by order dated 7.2.2017.
Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 26.5.2017,
hence, this petition.
4 The order of rejection which has been produced by the
learned A.P.P. shows that the petitioner had earlier given
threats to the witnesses, hence, there is danger to the life of the
witnesses if the petitioner is released on furlough. The
witnesses are staying in Kalwa, Dist. Thane. Pursuant to the
order dated 18.8.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 2569 of
2016, the petitioner was furnishing surety of his cousin sister
i.e. Smt. Swati Maruti Phad who was residing at Nashik,
however, the application of the petitioner for furlough came to
be rejected on the ground that the complainant and witnesses
had objected to the petitioner being released on furlough,
hence, police report stated that the petitioner would not listen
to the surety and surety would not be able to keep a check on
the petitioner. In addition, it is stated that the petitioner had
3 of 5
jdk 4 14.crwp.2370.17.j.doc
tendency to abscond, hence, he should not be released on
furlough. As far as this ground of the petitioner having
tendency to abscond is concerned, there is no material
produced before us to show that the petitioner had such
tendency. The petitioner has never been released on parole or
furlough earlier, hence, there was no question of absconding
and not reporting to the prison in time. Thus, we find this
ground to be without any basis. So also there is no basis to
state that the surety will not be able to keep a check on the
petitioner.
5 As far as danger to the life of the complainant and
witnesses is concerned, they are residing in Kalwa, Dist. Thane
and the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the
petitioner will reside at "Mu.N-9/M-2/L-4-4, Vande Matram
Chowk, Old Cidco, Nasik" and he will report to Ambad Police
Station, Dist. Nasik. The surety is also from Nasik. In our
opinion, if condition is imposed that the petitioner shall not
enter into the limits of District of Thane during the period he is
on furlough, the safety of the complainant and witnesses would
be secured.
4 of 5
jdk 5 14.crwp.2370.17.j.doc
6 In addition, the learned A.P.P. submitted that when
the co-accused was released from the prison, he did not stay at
the address which he had indicated, but, instead, he resided at
the place where the incident took place. Considering the facts
and circumstances of this case, the conduct of the co-accused
would not preclude the petitioner from being released on
furlough. In our opinion, none of the grounds mentioned in the
order of rejection are good grounds for rejecting the application
of the petitioner for furlough.
7 In view of the above facts, the petitioner to be
released on furlough for a period of 14 days on furnishing
surety of Smt. Swati Maruti Phad. During the period that the
petitioner is on furlough, he will not enter limits of Thane
District. In addition, the authorities may impose the usual
terms and conditions on the petitioner.
8 Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in above
terms.
[M.S.KARNIK, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
kandarkar
5 of 5
