Ramashish Ramjatan Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 7347 Bom

Dusane                                        1/4              wp 1830.2021.doc

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              WRIT PETITION NO.1830 OF 2021



     Ramashish Ramjatan Yadav                  )
     Age: 38 years, Occ:- Carpenter            )
     R/at Near Kanase Dhaba, Behind Shivraj )
     Petrol Pump, Gadoli, District Satara.     )
     (At present lodged at Pune Central Prison,)
     Yerwada, Pune as convict No. C/18157) ) ...... Petitioner.

            Vs.

     1] The State of Maharashtra                       )
                                                       )
     2] The Inspector General of Prison,               )
     Western Region, Yerwada, Pune.                    )
                                                       )
     3] The Superintendent,                            )
     Pune Central Prison, Yerwada, Pune.               ) ..... Respondents.

                                       ----
     Mr. Daulat G. Khamkar for Petitioner
     Mr. J.P. Yagnik , APP for State
                                       ----


                                        CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
                                                MANISH PITALE, JJ.

Judgment reserved on : 4/5/2021 Judgment pronounced on : 6/5/2021

Dusane 2/4 wp 1830.2021.doc

JUDGEMENT: (Per Manish Pitale J.)

1. By this petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction to the

Respondents to release him on furlough leave. The Petitioner is

undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for conviction under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code at Yerwada Central Prison at Pune. The

Petitioner claims that his application for grant of furlough leave was

wrongly rejected on 4th August, 2020 by the Respondent No. 3 and the

appeal filed by the Petitioner against the said order was also

erroneously rejected by Respondent No. 2 by order dated 9 th March,

2021. It was submitted that the Petitioner deserves to be released on

furlough leave and the reasons stated in the said orders are not

sustainable.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr.

Khamkar made submissions in tune with the contentions raised in the

writ petition. It was submitted that the Petitioner had been residing

with his family at Satara, in the state of Maharashtra for about 25 years

and there was no possibility of his absconding, upon release on

furlough leave.

Dusane 3/4 wp 1830.2021.doc

3. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, learned APP appearing on behalf of the

Respondents submitted that the Petitioner was the original resident of

Uttar Pradesh and that the material on record indicated that there was

chance of the Petitioner absconding upon being released on furlough

leave and further that there was possibility that the Petitioner would

create law and order problem by disturbing the life of those, who had

deposed as witnesses against him in the trial.

4. A perusal of the orders passed by the Respondent Nos. 2

and 3 shows that one of the factors taken into consideration by the said

Respondents is that the Petitioner originally belongs to a different state

i.e. Uttar Pradesh and that the Superintendent of Police had stated on

record that there was possibility of the Petitioner absconding. We have

also perused the report forwarded by the learned APP, which is

submitted by the Respondent No. 3. It shows that the Petitioner has

undergone about 7 years and 5 months of imprisonment and that he is

undergoing imprisonment for life for conviction under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code. Considering the fact that the Petitioner is

Dusane 4/4 wp 1830.2021.doc

original resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the apprehension

expressed in the impugned orders passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

of the likelihood of the Petitioner absconding, cannot be said to be

unreasonable. There is material referred to by the said Respondents

regarding possibility of law and order problem upon the Petitioner

being so released. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to hold

that the prayer for furlough leave made by the Petitioner before the

Respondents was wrongly rejected. We are not inclined to favourably

consider the prayer made in the writ petition.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

     ( MANISH PITALE, J.)                                        ( S.S. SHINDE, J.)