Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 218 (BOM)

Raju Natthuji Potpohode v. State of Maharashtra

2008-02-11

A.B.CHAUDHARI, A.P.LAVANDE

body2008
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.P.LAVANDE, J.) : Heard Ms.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mirza, learned A.P.P., for respondents. 2. Rule. Mr.Mirza, A.P.P., waives notice for respondents. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the competent authority rejecting the application for furlough filed by him. The application has been rejected on the following grounds – (i) there is likelihood of breach of peace in the event the petitioner is released on furlough; and (ii) the petitioner was on earlier occasion granted furlough and during the said period he committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, there is absolutely no material placed on record by the respondents to substantiate the same. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, in para 4 of the reply filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the petitioner has been acquitted in Crime No.69 of 2003 and discharged in Crime No. 33 of 2003. Since the petitioner has been discharged and acquitted of the offences on the basis of which furlough has been rejected, the rejection of furlough on the ground that the petitioner is involved in commission of said offences, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the competent authority is liable to be quashed and set aside and is quashed and set aside. 5. Competent authority is directed to release the petitioner on furlough for a period of two weeks subject to compliance of the Prison (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959. During the period of furlough the petitioner shall report at Koradi police station between 5 to 6 p.m. every day. In the event the petitioner fails to report, as directed above, liberty to police to arrest the petitioner and take him back to the prison. 6. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The fees payable to Advocate Ms. Nandita Dubey, who is appointed to appear for the petitioner, are quantified at Rs.750/-.