1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.398/2010 [Gurmukhsingh Bahadursingh Tak .vrs. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati and another] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 10, 2010. Heard Ms. Nisha Gajbhiye, Advocate holding for Dr. U.K. Kalasi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.S. Wandile, learned APP for the respondents. By this petition, the petitioner, challenges order dated 1.6.2010 by which parole leave has been rejected to the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life at Central Prison, Amravati. The petitioner sought parole on the ground that his daughter Roshni was seriously ill. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the petitioner was earlier released on furlough in the year 2004 and at that time he absconded for a period of 844 days and he was arrested in another offence and brought back to the prison. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the petitioner was already punished for jail offence i.e. late surrender by a period of 844 days, rejection of parole leave on the same ground would be violative of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondents, we find no merit in the present petition. We find that there is no merit in the submission of the petitioner that the action of the respondents is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Merely because the petitioner was awarded punishment for jail offence, the same by itself would not be sufficient to hold that while considering parole leave application the conduct of the petitioner that he absconded during the period of furlough, cannot be considered by the Competent Authority. In terms of the Rule 4 (4) (10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the Competent Authority was entitled to reject furlough leave of the petitioner. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande