Shivaji Malji Gindra vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 7039 Bom

                                                 31 WP 3184 OF 2017.doc

vks
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3184 OF 2017


      Shivaji Malji Gindra                            ]
      prisoner No.13154,                              ] Petitioner
      lodged in Yerwada Central Prison                ]

                 V/s.

      The State of Maharashtra                        ] Respondent


      Mr. Prosper D'souza, appointed advocate
      for the Petitioner.
      Mr. Arfan Sait, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.


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

DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per: Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.]

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner has preferred an application for

furlough on 23rd June, 2016. The said application was rejected

by order dated 27th January, 2017. Being aggrieved thereby,

the petitioner preferred an appeal. Appeal was dismissed by

order dated 9th June 2017, hence this petition.

3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came

31 WP 3184 OF 2017.doc

to be rejected, mainly on the ground that on 22.11.2013,

when the petitioner was released on parole for 30 days

despite the fact that extension of parole leave was granted for

60 days, the petitioner did not report back on the due date to

the prison. Ultimately, the petitioner was traced and arrested

by the police and brought back to the prison. There was

overstay of 870 days, on the part of the petitioner. Looking to

this fact, it was apprehended by the authorities that if

petitioner is released on parole, he will not return to the

prison and will abscond. In addition, it is seen that police

report is adverse and the Superintendent of Prison has not

recommended his release.

4. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, it cannot

be said that the apprehension of the authority is without any

reason. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is

discharged. Petition is dismissed.

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]