Abdul Mukim Ansari vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8117 Bom

                                                                             18. wp 3776.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3776 OF 2017

                 Abdul Mukim Ansari                        .. Petitioner
                      Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra                  .. Respondent

                 Mrs.Nasreen S.K.Ayubi, for the Petitioner.
                 Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP  for State.


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

12th OCTOBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.

V .K.TAHILRAMANI , J.) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough

on 26/09/2016. The said application was rejected by order

dated 17/02/2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

preferred an Appeal. The Appeal was dismissed by order dated

28/06/2017. Hence, this Petition.

3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came

18. wp 3776.17.doc

be rejected on the ground that on 09/07/2004 when the

petitioner was released on furlough for 14 days, he did not

report back on the due date to the prison. The petitioner

absconded. Thereafter he was traced by the police. The police

arrested and brought him back to the prison on 02/08/2011.

Thus, there was over stay of 2566 days on the part of the

petitioner. On account of this fact, it was apprehended that if

the petitioner is released on furlough, he will abscond and not

report back to the prison. Looking to the conduct of the

petitioner, it cannot be said that this apprehension is without

any basis. In addition, it is seen that the conduct of the

petitioner in the prison is also not satisfactory. He is not doing

the work allotted to him. Looking of all these facts, we are of

the opinion that no case is made out for interference. Rule is

discharged.

4. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner

who is in the Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur.

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