Sandip Suresh Gurav v. State Of Maharashtra

KSG 65-WP-6130-2025.A.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6130 OF 2025 Sandip Suresh Gurav ... Petitioner V/s.

State of Maharashtra ... Respondent _______________________________________ Mr. Karan Kadam (Appointed Advocate) a/w Mr. I.K. Paranjape for the Petitioner.

Ms. M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. Ms. Suvarna Chorge, Jailor Gr-II, Nashik Central Prison, Nashik. _______________________________________ CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 20th JANUARY 2026 P.C. :

1) Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate appointed to represent Petitioner.

Digitally signed by KIRAN SANJAY GHUGE Date:

2026.01.29 11:03:35 +0530 2) By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 15th KIRAN SANJAY GHUGE September 2025, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Furlough and Parole Rules, thereby rejecting his Application for furlough leave for the year 2024.

3) Record indicates that, when the Petitioner was released on furlough leave on 28th January, 2010, he did not report to the jail Authority within stipulated period and was to be arrested by Police and brought back to the jail.

1/2

KSG 65-WP-6130-2025.A.doc 3.1) That, on the second occasion i.e. 22nd March 2013, Petitioner was released on parole leave when also he did not report to the jail Authority on due date and was to be arrested in some other case by the Police and thereafter brought back to the jail.

3.2) That, on 29th May 2014, Petitioner was again released on furlough leave when also he did not report to the jail Authority within stipulated period and was to be arrested by Police and brought back to the jail Authority after the delay of 480 days.

4) Perusal of impugned Order indicates that, the Appellate Authority has rightly considered the conduct of the Petitioner in regularly not reporting back to the jail Authority while released on furlough or parole leave. It has also considered the fact that, when the Petitioner was released on bail had indulged in the commission of another offence. 5) In view of the above, we find that there are not merits in the Petition.

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

( SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. ) 2/2