Bombay High CourtWP/2568/2017rule discharged

Ganesh Motiram Sangamner v. The State Of Maharashtra

2017-07-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep Kashinath Shinde,Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.K. Tahilramani3 pages

* 1/3 * 39-WP-2568-2017.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2568 OF 2017 Ganesh Motiram Sangamner ......Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra .......Respondent Mr. Prosper D'Souza , Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. H.J.Dedhia, APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM :

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :

July 25, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.] ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.] Heard both sides.

Heard both sides.

The petitioner preferred an application for The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 21.10.2016. The said application was rejected furlough on 21.10.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 12.1.2017. Being aggrieved thereby by order dated 12.1.2017. Being aggrieved thereby petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 8.5.2017 hence, this petition. by order dated 8.5.2017 hence, this petition. Application of the petitioner for furlough came to Application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected mainly on the ground that on the last occasion, be rejected mainly on the ground that on the last occasion,

* 2/3 * 39-WP-2568-2017.doc i.e., on 30.9.2013 when the petitioner was released on i.e., on 30.9.2013 when the petitioner was released on furlough, he did not report back to the prison on due date. furlough, he did not report back to the prison on due date. The petitioner then was arrested by the police and brought The petitioner then was arrested by the police and brought back to the prison on 21.11.2013. Thus, there was overstay back to the prison on 21.11.2013. Thus, there was overstay of 37 days on the part of the petitioner. Based on this, it of 37 days on the part of the petitioner.

Based on this, it was apprehended that if the petitioner is released on was apprehended that if the petitioner is released on furlough, he would not report back to the prison in time furlough, he would not report back to the prison in time and he may abscond. Looking to the conduct of the and he may abscond. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner, we do not find any error in the conclusion petitioner, we do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the authorities. Hence, we are not inclined to arrived at by the authorities. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere.

interfere.

Rule is discharged.

However, if the petitioner prefers fresh However, if the petitioner prefers fresh application for parole or furlough, same to be decided on application for parole or furlough, same to be decided on merits after looking into the recent conduct of the merits after looking into the recent conduct of the petitioner.

petitioner.

* 3/3 * 39-WP-2568-2017.doc Office to communicate this order to the Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. petitioner who is in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)