Gujarat High Court
Gajanand Pandurang Nandekar vs State Of Gujarat on 29 August, 2011
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*