Bombay High Court
Lata Arun Dhake vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, R. N. Laddha
2023:BHC-AS:23336-DB
(24)-WP-2823-23.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
BALAJI
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2023.08.18
10:39:33
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2823 OF 2023
+0530
Lata W/o Arun Dhake
(Husband of Petitioner Arun
S/o Janardhan Dhake) ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal, for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2023
P.C.
1. The prayer for grant of furlough was rejected by the
respondent authorities vide impugned order dated 5 th December,
2022 and confirmed in appeal vide order dated 26th July, 2023.
2. Amongst other grounds for rejection were; (a) that the
accused/convict was convicted in an offence punishable with life
imprisonment; (b) if released, convict is likely to abscond; and (c)
in case, if convict is released, there is likelihood of issuing threats to
the witnesses etc.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that law on the issue
of grant of furlough to convict is well settled as could be inferred
BGP. 1 of 3
(24)-WP-2823-23.doc.
from the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Asfaq Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2017 CJ (SC) 958. According to him,
the husband of the petitioner i.e. convict came to be arrested on 24th
June, 2011 and convicted on 2 nd May, 2018 and as such, for last
more than ten years, convict is suffering imprisonment. He would
urge that the similarly placed co-accused in the very same crime had
ordered to be released on furlough vide order dated 6 th January,
2023 passed in Writ Petition No.3011 of 2021 (Sandeep S/o Suresh
Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors). As such, counsel would
urge that the orders impugned are liable to be quashed and set
aside.
4. While countering aforesaid submissions, learned APP
would urge that there are sufficient reasons narrated in both the
impugned orders to claim that the prayer for release on furlough
cannot be said to be justified.
5. We have appreciated the submissions.
6. Having gone through the contents of the orders
impugned, the observations made by this Court in Writ Petition
No.3011 of 2021 (Sandeep S/o Suresh Gaikwad Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.) decided on 6th January, 2023, the fact remains
that the issue is squarely covered by the said judgment. The
petitioner in the said petition is similarly situated like the convict in
the present case, who is convicted in the very same offence and was
BGP. 2 of 3
(24)-WP-2823-23.doc.
was arrested on 24th June, 2011 and convicted on 2nd May, 2018.
7. In view of above, we deem it appropriate to allow the
present petition.
8. The orders impugned dated 5th December, 2022 and 26th
July, 2023 are quashed and set aside.
9. We direct that the husband of the petitioner i.e. convict
be released on furlough for a period of 28 days to be computed from
the date of his actual release, on furnishing a bond and a surety in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the respondent i.e.
Superintendent of the prison and on such other terms and
conditions the respondent authorities deem fit and proper to
impose.
10. Before release of the convict, he shall furnish details to
the jail authorities about his place of stay and with whom he is
staying.
11. The convict shall attend the concerned police station on
every alternate day during his release on furlough.
12. The petition as such stands allowed in above terms.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BGP. 3 of 3
