Kamru @ Javed Hanif Lala Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra
2018 Latest Caselaw 933 Bom

 jdk                                                  1                                              12.crwp5278.17.j.doc



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5278 OF 2017



Kamru @ Javed Hanif Lala Khan                                                    ]
Age 39 years,                                                                    ]
Convict No. C-7692, Nasik Road                                                   ]
Central Prison, Nasik,                                                           ]
Presently lodged in Yerawada                                                     ]
Central Prison, Pune, Class-I,                                                   ]
Pune-411006                                                                      ].. Petitioner

                    Vs.


     (1)            The State of Maharashtra                                     ]
     (2)            The Deputy Inspector                                         ]
                    General of Prison,                                           ]
                    Central Region,                                              ]
                    Aurangabad                                                   ]
      (3)           The Superintendent,                                          ]
                    Nasik Road Central Prison                                    ]
                    Nasik.                                                       ].. Respondents


                               ....
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
                               ....


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

DATED : JANUARY 24, 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, ACJ.]:

1                   Heard both sides.


                                                                                                    1   of  3





  jdk                                                  2                                              12.crwp5278.17.j.doc



2                   The petitioner preferred an application for furlough

which was granted by order dated 8.10.2015. Pursuant thereto,

the petitioner was released on furlough on 17.10.2015 for a

period of 14 days i.e. till 30.1.2015. On 23.10.2015, the

petitioner preferred an application for extension of furlough.

The said application was rejected, hence, this petition.

3 The order of rejection shows that when the petitioner

was released on furlough on 17.10.2015, a condition was

imposed on the petitioner of reporting to the police station. The

order of release shows that the petitioner had to report

everyday to Parksite Police Station, Vikhroli, Mumbai, however,

during the 14 days period that he was on furlough, he did not

report to the police station on 4 days. In addition, it is seen that

after the petitioner was released on furlough on 17.10.2015, he

was involved in an offence i.e. CR No. 451 of 2015 of Parksite

Police Station. The said case is under Sections 323, 324, 504,

506(II) read with Section 34 of IPC. Thus, it is seen that the

petitioner has flouted the conditions on which he was released

on furlough, hence, application for extension of furlough was

2 of 3

jdk 3 12.crwp5278.17.j.doc

rejected on 25.11.2015. Looking to the reasons on which the

application of the petitioner for extension of furlough was

rejected, we do not find that this is a fit case to interfere. Rule

is discharged. Petition is dismissed.

            M.S.KARNIK, J.                                                                            ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

kandarkar




                                                                                                                3   of  3