IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO 1621 of 2004
in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 646 of 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------
GAJANAND PANDURANG NANDEKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. Criminal Misc.Application No. 1621 of 2004
THROUGH JAIL for Petitioner No. 1
MR BS SUPEHIA for Petitioner No. 1
MR PRACHCHHAK, APP, for Respondent No. 1
.......... for Respondent No. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA
and
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA
Date of Order: 19/03/2004
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA)
Rule. Learned APP Shri Prachchhak waives service
of Rule for the respondent – State.
The applicant – accused has prayed for early
hearing of his above Appeal and if it is not possible
then release him on bail till the final disposal of his
Appeal.
His Appeal is of 1999, whereas this Court is
taking up Appeals of 1996 onwards. Therefore, in absence
of any special reasons there is no question of giving him
priority. Hence, the prayer for early hearing of the
Appeal is rejected.
It is true that the applicant – accused has
remained in jail as under-trial prisoner for a period of
1 year-3 months and 20 days and after his order of
conviction and sentence dated 18.6.1999, passed against
him, he has remained in jail for a period of 4 years, 7
months and 19 days. Thus, nearly for a period of 6 years
he has remained in jail. However, from the jail record
it appears that he is entitled for two furlough as he has
not enjoyed the same so far. The jail ticket of the
applicant – accused, produced by the learned APP Shri
Prachchhak, shows that the case of the applicant accused
to grant both the furlough at a time is under
consideration before the I.G.(Prison), Gujarat State,
Ahmedabad. In that view of the matter, we are not
inclined to entertain this Application at this stage,
with a direction to the concerned Authority to consider
his case for grant of both the furlough at a time at the
earliest, preferably within fortnight from today. While
considering his case the Authority may also keep in mind
the fact that he is not a hardened criminal. The
allegations against him seems to be that he has committed
the murder of his wife and therefore he was convicted
u/s.302, 498 I.P.Code. He has got 2 minor daughters and
one son, aged 8, and old mother, who is aged 70, having
cataract. Under the circumstances, the Authority may
consider his case sympathetically and if satisfied, then
the applicant – accused be granted furlough on his
furnishing Personal Bond to the satisfaction of the
Authority.
With this observation, this petition is disposed
of at this stage. Rule discharged.
We make it clear that in case if the furlough
Application is not decided by the Authority in favour of
the Applicant – accused then it would be open to the
applicant – accused to apply again by way of Regular Bail
Application. As and when such Application is filed the
same may be considered and decided in accordance with
law. With this observation this petition is disposed of.
(B.J.Shethna, J.)
Date : March 19, 2004
(J. R. Vora, J.)
*sas*