Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Nikhil Shivaji Golait vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 June, 2025
ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 4703/2024
NIKHIL SHIVAJI GOLAIT Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
[ ONLY I.A. NO.147782/2025 IN SLP(CRL)NO.17915/2024 IS LISTED UNDER
THIS ITEM. ]
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 17915/2024 (II-C)
IA No. 147782/2025 - GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF
Date : 25-06-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
(PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Mridul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Hemendra Jailiya, Adv.
Ms. Madhurima Mridul, Adv.
Mr. Minnatullah, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, AOR
Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Ms. Priyanka Terdal, Adv.
Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv.
Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.06.25
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
16:55:23 IST
Reason: Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Shrirang B. Verma, Adv.
1
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sanchar Anand, Adv.
Mr. Apoorva Singhal, AOR
Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
I.A. No. 147782/2025 in SLP(Crl) No. 17915/2024
We have heard Shri Siddharth Mridul, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, learned
A.S.G. for the respondent(s)/State and Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
This interlocutory application has been filed by the
petitioner seeking the relief of his release on furlough for a
suitable period during the pendency of the related special leave
petition.
Be it stated that the related SLP(Crl) No. 17915/2024 has
been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.11.2024
passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No.1682/2023
[Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi] whereby and
whereunder prayer of the petitioner for grant of furlough was
rejected.
Be it stated that petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court
under Sections 302, 364 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life.
In Criminal Appeal No.145/2012, the High Court passed judgment
and order dated 06.02.2015 enhancing the sentence of the petitioner
2
to life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment
without consideration of remission and fine of Rs.10,000/-. This
order of the High Court has been affirmed by this Court.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner had completed 20 years of actual imprisonment without
consideration of remission on 09.03.2025. However, prior thereto
the related Writ Petition, i.e., W.P. (Crl.) No.1682/2023 was
filed before the High Court seeking furlough for a period of three
weeks.
As noted above, by the impugned order dated 25.11.2024, the
said prayer was rejected.
In the course of hearing of the main SLP, this Court permitted
the petitioner to amend the Special Leave Petition incorporating
the ground that petitioner’s sentence would come to an end on
undergoing 20 years of actual incarceration without remission.
In the hearing today, learned A.S.G very fairly submits that
since it is a matter of furlough, Court may consider passing
appropriate order. But, at the same time, the security of the
informant should also be taken into consideration by the Court as
she has already been offered security by the State because of the
circumstances surrounding the case.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently objects to the
prayer of the petitioner. She submits that conduct of the
petitioner leaves much to be desired and would not entitle him to
any discretionary relief from the Court. In this connection,
she has referred to an order dated 06.02.2025 passed by a learned
3
Judge of the High Court in W.P. (Crl.) No.1848/2020 whereby the
learned Judge recused herself from hearing the matter observing
that attempts have been made to influence the Court.
While such conduct is highly deplorable and condemnable, there
is nothing on record to show whether any enquiry was conducted to
find out who had indulged in such reprehensible activity. In the
absence thereof, it would not be just and proper to deny relief to
the petitioner on that count
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking an
overall view of the matter, more particularly the factum that
petitioner has completed 20 years of uninterrupted incarceration
without remission, as ordered by the High Court which was affirmed
by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that it is a fit case
where petitioner deserves to be released on furlough at least for a
limited duration. Of course, necessary conditions would have to be
imposed on the petitioner so that liberty of furlough is not
misused. That apart, safety and security of respondent Nos.2 and 3
are also required to be protected.
That being the position, we grant furlough to the petitioner
for a period of three months from the date of release. Petitioner
shall be produced before the learned Trial Court within a
maximum period of seven days from today, whereafter the
learned Trial Court shall release the petitioner on furlough
on appropriate terms and conditions including concerning
safety and security of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
4
The Interlocutory Application is disposed of.
List the matters before the Regular Bench on 29.07.2025, as
already ordered.
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (PREETI SAXENA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
5