RUPESH SALGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondents. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) Ms. Chiquita, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the reason given by the respondent no.2 for rejecting the grant of furlough was both unreasonable and unjustifiable and that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of furlough in his favour.

(3.) Shri S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the ground adopted by the respondent no.2 to reject the furlough was not justifiable and therefore necessary order could be passed granting furlough in favour of the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been undergoing the sentence of imprisonment since the time of his conviction from 22/02/2016 and in custody from the date of his arrest on 23/01/2013 and besides also giving weightage to the fact that there was no denial of his assertion that his conduct and behavior was good, we find it appropriate that the ground urged on behalf of the respondent no.2 to deny the benefit of furlough to the petitioner is both unreasonable and unjustifiable. In the circumstances we pass the following