Bombay High CourtAtul Kewalram Shende (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Home ... on 1 March, 2016Author:V.M. DeshpandeBench:B.P. Dharmadhikari,V.M. Deshpande1




                                                                                   
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :

                              NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R.




                                                           
                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 34 OF 2016




                                                          
    Atul Kewalram Shende,
    C-8687, Central Prison,
    Nagpur.                                    ....    PETITIONER.




                                              
                      -VERSUS -

    1. The State of Maharashtra,  
       Home Department, Mantralaya,
       Mumbai-32.
                                 
    2. D.I.G., Prison (E)(R),
       Nagpur.

    3. The Superintendent,
      


       Central Prison,
       Nagpur.                                 ....    RESPONDENTS.
   



                               ....
    Mrs. Sneha S. Dhote Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner.
    Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents.
                                  ....
                  CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.





                  DATED : 01st March, 2016.


    ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per V.M. Deshpande, J.) :Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

    the consent of Advocate Mrs. Dhote for the petitioner and learned APP for

    the respondents.2.               Request made by the petitioner for the first time before the::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2016                      ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:22:35 :::2authorities below for grant of furlough is rejected, requiring the petitioner to

    approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.3.                 According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer for




                                                            
    grant of furlough was rejected because of adverse police report which

    shows that the relatives of the victim have raised objection. Admittedly, till




                                                  
    this date at no point of time the petitioner is released either on furlough or

    parole.       Therefore, there is no foundation in respect of apprehension
                                    
    expressed by the police authorities. In that view of the matter, writ petition
                                   
    deserves to be allowed. Accordingly it is allowed.4.                 Impugned order dated 14.8.2015 is set aside. Authorities
      


    below are directed to release the petitioner on furlough after observing all
   



    the requirements. The petitioner, after his release from the jail, shall not

    intimidate any of the relatives of the victim nor shall commit any unlawful





    act.Charges for counsel appointed to represent the petitioner are

    quantified at Rs.1500/-.JUDGE                   JUDGE



     /TA/::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2016                      ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:22:35 :::