1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLTE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2961 OF 2009 Anil Dayabhai Parmar ......Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent Mr. Arfan Sait for the Petitioner Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. Heard. 2 The petitioner-prisoner, by letter addressed to this Court, has sought direction for his release on furlough, as his application for furlough came to be rejected by the respondent. 3 The respondent has filed it's affidavit-in-reply. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner-prisoner Anil Dayabhai Parmar was arrested on 26-5-2004 by Ramnagar Police Station, Dombivali, and tried for the charge of having committed murder, by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2 Kalyan, in Sessions Case No. 225/2004 who by his Judgment and order dated 9-5-2006 convicted and sentenced the petitioner-prisoner to suffer life imprisonment. It has been further pointed out in the said reply affidavit that the application made by the petitioner-prisoner on 13-11-2008 for furlough came to be rejected on the ground of adverse police report that he will be threat to the law and order and there is likelihood that he may threaten witnesses, if he is released on furlough. 3 We have gone through the annexures annexed with the affidavit-in reply. In so far as threat to the complainant/witnesses in the case is concerned, the Commissioner of Police, Thane has stated that they have left jurisdiction of Thane Commissionerate and now they are residing at Nagpur but they have communicated through fax that they apprehend threats to them if the petitioner-prisoner is released on furlough. The other contention is that in the year 2007 when the petitioner was released on furlough he reported late to prison by 29 days and did not attend Dombivali Police Station during furlough leave. 4 We specifically inquired from the learned APP as to whether the petitioner-prisoner was punished by the prison authority for overstaying furlough. Learned APP informed the Court that he was punished by jail authority. Therefore, we do not find that for the said reason the petitioner can be denied furlough, when it is due in future. That is not part of punishment imposed on the petitioner-prisoner. 5 We therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the Competent Authority/Sanctioning Authority to reconsider the case of the 3 petitioner-prisoner for grant of furlough within a period of 2 weeks from today on usual terms and conditions. Petition stands disposed of. 6 The order be communicated to the petitioner-prisoner through Superintendent of Prison. A.A. SAYED J. J.N. PATEL, J.