Sunil Vishwanath Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2018 Latest Caselaw 329 Bom

                                                            19. Cri. WP 4744-17.doc

DDR

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 4744 OF 2017

       Sunil Vishwanath Gaikwad                             ...Petitioner
                        Vs.
       The State of Maharashtra & anr.                      ...Respondents
                                    ...........
       Mr. Hitesh P. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner.

       Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. - State.
                                      ...........

                        CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.  
                                       AND M.S.KARNIK, J.

DATE : 11th JANUARY, 2018.

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

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough

on 2/10/2016. The said application was rejected by order dated

21/3/2017. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an

appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated

10/8/2017, hence, this petition.

19. Cri. WP 4744-17.doc

3. The application of the petitioner for furlough came

to be rejected on the ground that on 24/7/2012, when the

petitioner was released on furlough and on 23/4/2013, when

the petitioner was released on parole, he did not return back on

the due date to the prison and ultimately he had to be arrested

by the police and brought back to the prison. On 24/7/2012,

when the petitioner was released on furlough, he was arrested

by the police and brought back to the prison on 3/10/2012 i.e.

after an overstay of 56 days. Even though, the petitioner did not

return back to the prison on the due date and he was arrested by

the police and brought back to the prison, despite this fact the

petitioner was released on parole on 23/4/2013. However, the

petitioner did not report back on the due date to the prison and

he was arrested by the police and brought back to the prison on

12/12/2013 i.e. after a delay of 202 days. On account of these

two facts, it was apprehended by the authorities that if the

petitioner is released on furlough, he will not report back to the

prison in time. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, it cannot

be said that this apprehension is without any basis. Hence, we

19. Cri. WP 4744-17.doc

are not inclined to interfere, hence, the rule is discharged.

However, if the petitioner prefers a fresh application for

furlough, the same to be considered by the authorities on its

own merits after also taking into consideration the recent

conduct of the petitioner in the prison. If such an application is

preferred, the said application be disposed of expeditiously by

the concerned authority.

4. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

 (M.S.KARNIK, J.)                              (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)