Bombay High CourtWP/5278/2017rule discharged

Kamru @ Javed Hanif Lala Khan v. The State Of Maharashtra

2018-01-24Hon'Ble The Acting Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik3 pages

jdk 1 12.crwp5278.17.j.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5278 OF 2017 Kamru @ Javed Hanif Lala Khan ] Age 39 years, ] Convict No. C-7692, Nasik Road ] Central Prison, Nasik, ] Presently lodged in Yerawada ] Central Prison, Pune, Class-I, ] Pune-411006 ].. Petitioner Vs.

(1) The State of Maharashtra ] (2) The Deputy Inspector ] General of Prison, ] Central Region, ] Aurangabad ] (3) The Superintendent, ] Nasik Road Central Prison ] Nasik.

].. Respondents ....

Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State ....

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.]: Heard both sides.

jdk 2 12.crwp5278.17.j.doc The petitioner preferred an application for furlough which was granted by order dated 8.10.2015. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was released on furlough on 17.10.2015 for a period of 14 days i.e. till 30.1.2015. On 23.10.2015, the petitioner preferred an application for extension of furlough. The said application was rejected, hence, this petition. The order of rejection shows that when the petitioner was released on furlough on 17.10.2015, a condition was imposed on the petitioner of reporting to the police station. The order of release shows that the petitioner had to report everyday to Parksite Police Station, Vikhroli, Mumbai, however, during the 14 days period that he was on furlough, he did not report to the police station on 4 days.

In addition, it is seen that after the petitioner was released on furlough on 17.10.2015, he was involved in an offence i.e. CR No. 451 of 2015 of Parksite Police Station. The said case is under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(II) read with Section 34 of IPC.

jdk 3 12.crwp5278.17.j.doc rejected on 25.11.2015. Looking to the reasons on which the application of the petitioner for extension of furlough was rejected, we do not find that this is a fit case to interfere. Rule is discharged. Petition is dismissed.

M.S.KARNIK, J.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE kandarkar