1 crwp1951-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1951 OF 2010 Kundlik Pandurang Jadhav ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another ..Respondents. Smt.Sonia S. Miskin, Advocate apointed for the petitioner. Mr.K.V. Saste, APP for the State. CORAM : A.M. Khanwilkar, & U.D. Salvi, JJ. DATE : 30th August 2010. P.C. : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed through jail, prays for direction against the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough. The petitioners request has been rejected by the authorities vide order dated 11th May 2010 on the opinion that there is information that if the petitioner is released, he is likely to commit another offense. This information has been derived on the basis of statement of the concerned witnesses recorded by the police officials. The petitioner was resident of Village Shipora, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar. The 2 crwp1951-10 witnesses are also from the same village. Instead of rejecting the request for grant of furlough, the authorities could have been well advised to impose strict conditions, such as directing the petitioner not to enter the village Shipora, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar. That condition would address the apprehension of the witnesses. If the petitioner is willing to abide by this condition, the authorities would be free to consider the petitioners request for grant of furlough afresh on its own merits in accordance with law and impose such other conditions as may be found appropriate. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 2. The Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by Smt.Sonia S. Miskin, Advocate appointed to espouse the cause of the petitioner. Copy of this order be forwarded to the petitioner, who is in jail forthwith. 3. The Court however deprecates the attitude of Mr.S.R. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor, who has failed to appear on both the occasions when the matter was called out today. On the earlier occasion, we were informed that he was busy in some other Court, therefore, we kept the matter back to be called out after lunch hours. Even at second call, he was not present. In the circumstances, we had to request another Additional Public Prosecutor to take instructions from the police official, who is present in Court so that the matter can proceed. With the assistance of learned APP 3 crwp1951-10 Mr.Saste, we have disposed of this petition today. 4. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department for information and necessary action. (U.D. Salvi, J.) (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.)