Bombay High Court
Pappu @ Popat Mallappa Pol vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 January, 2018
jdk 1 9.crwp.4424.17.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4424 OF 2017
Pappu @ Popat Mallappa Pol ]
C/5210, Age 33 years, ]
Occ: Convict Presently ]
at K.C.P. Kalamba, Kolhapur -7 ].. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ]
At the instance of : ]
(1) Through Superintendent, ]
Kolhapur Central Prison, ]
Kalamba, Kolhapur-416007 ]
(2) Additional Director, ]
General and Inspector ]
of Prison, Pune-1 ]
(3) Deputy Inspector General ]
of Prison, Western Region, ]
Yerawada, Pune - 411006 ]
(4) Sub-Divisional Police ]
Officer, Jaisinghpur Divn. ]
Jaisinghpur ]
(5) Police Inspector, ]
Ichalkaranji Police Station, ]
Ichalkaranji ]
(6) Police Inspector, ]
Hatkalangale Police Station ]
Hatkalangale ].. Respondents
....
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar A.P.P. for the State
....
1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2018 00:46:33 :::
jdk 2 9.crwp.4424.17.j.doc
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.
2 The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on
16.11.2016. The said application was rejected on 6.3.2017.
Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
The appeal was dismissed by order dated 18.8.2017, hence, this
petition.
3 The application of the petitioner came to be rejected
on the ground that if the petitioner is released on furlough,
there is possibility of law and order problem. The second
ground on which it is rejected is that, if the petitioner is released
on furlough, there will be danger to the lives of the witnesses.
The third ground on which it is rejected is that, when he was
earlier released on parole, there was delay of 33 days in
reporting back to the prison.
4 It is an admitted fact that on 7.6.2016 the petitioner
2 of 4
jdk 3 9.crwp.4424.17.j.doc
was released on parole and he came back to the prison on his
own on 10.8.2016. During this period, there is no record that
any law and order situation arose on account of the petitioner.
In addition, it is seen that during the period that the petitioner
was on parole, there was no complaint of any witness against
the petitioner. As far as the last ground is concerned that there
was delay of 33 days in reporting back to the prison, the
petitioner had preferred an application for extension of parole
for a further period of 30 days. Till the petitioner reported back
to the prison, the decision on his application for extension of
parole was not communicated to the petitioner, hence, after the
period of 30 days extension which was sought by him was over,
he reported back to the prison on his own. It is pertinent to note
that it is not the case that the petitioner was arrested by the
police and was brought back to the prison but it is a case where
the petitioner himself surrendered back to the prison on his
own.
5 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that
grounds stated in the order of rejection are not good grounds,
hence, the orders dated 6.3.2017 and 18.8.2017 are set aside.
3 of 4
jdk 4 9.crwp.4424.17.j.doc
The petitioner to be released on furlough on usual terms and
conditions by the jail authorities. Rule is made absolute in
above terms. Petition is allowed.
6 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who
is in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur.
M.S.KARNIK, J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
kandarkar
4 of 4
