Ashok Laxman Kalaskar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 6907 Bom

osk                                                                                                             19-wp-3179-2017.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3179 OF 2017

Ashok Laxman Kalaskar                                                             ...           Petitioner
           V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                                          ...           Respondent

• Ms.Rohini M. Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner. • Mr.Arfan Sait, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.

DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2017.

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

1]                     Heard both sides. 


2]                     The   Petitioner   preferred   an   application   for   furlough   on

02/08/2016. The said application came to be rejected on

30/12/2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred an

appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 04/05/2017; hence

this petition.

3]                     The application of the Petitioner for furlough came to be





 osk                                                                                                             19-wp-3179-2017.odt

rejected on ground that, on 11/01/2016 when he was released on

parole, he did not report back to the prison in time and there was

overstay of 30 days on the part of the Petitioner. In addition, the

application of the Petitioner for furlough came to be rejected on the

ground that when he was released on parole, he has abused and

threatened the complainant and the complainant has lodged

N.C.No.109 of 2016 on 03/03/2016.

4] In view of the above facts, it was apprehended by the

Authorities that, if the Petitioner is released, there may be danger to

the life of the complainant.

5] Looking to the conduct of the Petitioner, it cannot be said

that the apprehension by the Authorities is without any basis. Hence,

we are not inclined to entertain the petition. Therefore, Rule is

discharged.

(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)