← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1477/2015rule discharged

Emile Jerome v. The State Of Maharashtra

2016-06-15Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.K. Tahilramani,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Mridula Bhatkar2 pages

Sherla V.

wp.1477.2015_13(2).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1477 OF 2015 Emile Jerome ... Applicant Vs.

The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons & Ors.

... Respondents Ms.Rohini Dandekar for the Applicant Mrs.A.S. Pai, APP, for Respondent - State CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE: JUNE 15, 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.):

1.

Heard both sides.

2.

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.

Learned APP Mrs.Pai had tendered an affidavit. However, she sought leave to take back the affidavit as it had some errors. Leave granted. The affidavit is returned back and the learned APP was allowed to argue the matter on the basis of the record. 4.

The prayer of the petitioner is that he be granted 21 days furlough as per his entitlement due on 22.5.2015. The nominal roll of the petitioner prepared by the Additional Senior Jailor shows that the petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 5.6.2013. The said application was granted 1 / 2

wp.1477.2015_13(2).doc and the petitioner was released on furlough from 14.11.2013 to 18.12.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 28.12.2013 which pertained to release on furlough in the year 2014. The said application was granted and the petitioner was released on furlough on 30.5.2014 till 19.6.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 24.11.2014. The said application was granted and the petitioner was released on furlough from 18.6.2015 to 22.7.2015. In addition, the petitioner was released on parole from 9.1.2013 to 9.3.2013 and from 24.6.2014 to 21.9.2014. Thus, it is seen that from the year 2013, every year, the petitioner has been released on furlough. Moreover, it is seen that at present the petitioner is on parole. 5.

In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Rule is discharged.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) 2 / 2