1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1080 OF 2009 Shaikh Noor Shaikh Karim, Convict No.7480, Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT Mrs R.R. Mane, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner; Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 20th January, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DAVARE, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is an application received from the convict from the jail which was treated as writ petition. By the said application the convict has 2 requested to release him on furlough leave. The subject-matter of the present writ petition is the order dated 22.9.2009 passed by Special Inspector General of Prisons, Central Division, Aurangabad. 3. It is the contention of the applicant that he applied for furlough leave on 22.1.2009 and the said application was sent to the police authorities for the police report. However, the said police report received was adverse to the applicant and basing upon the said police report, the Special Inspector General of Prisons, Central Division, Aurangabad has passed the impugned order on 22.9.2009 and rejected the application of the applicant for furlough leave. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the adverse police report submitted by the police authorities has not been supported by any objective material. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 22.9.2009 passed by Special Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. The respondent filed the affidavit in reply which is sworn in by Shri Sahebrao Bajirao Neware working as Senior Jailor Group-I, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. The said affidavit in reply reflects that the petitioner had submitted the application for furlough leave on 22.1.2009, which was forwarded to Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad and which was consequently forwarded to Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Ahmednagar but the Superintendent of 3 Police, Ahmednagar has submitted adverse report. It is stated that in sum and substance the report of the Superintendent of Police discloses that although the maternal uncle of petitioner was ready to take surety of the petitioner but in case the petitioner is released, he is likely to commit offence and it cannot be assured that no untoward incident would occur. The said reply further reveals that Additional District Magistrate, Ahmednagar also concurred with the said report. The said affidavit in reply further reveals that basing upon the said report and concurrence, the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad rejected the application of the petitioner for furlough leave vide order dated 22.9.2009 invoking rule 4 (4) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties as well as perused the record and proceedings produced by learned A.P.P. in the present matter. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and also after perusal of the record and proceedings it appears that for arriving the subjective decision of the adverse police report no objective material has been placed on record and the authorities could not have accepted the mere ipse dixit of the police authorities. In the circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.9.2009 passed by Special Inspector General of Prisons, Central Division, Aurangabad. 4 6. Accordingly, present Writ Petition No.1080 of 2009 is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.9.2009 passed by Special Inspector General of Prisons, Central Division, Aurangabad stands quashed and set aside and it is directed that the applicant be released on furlough leave forthwith in accordance with law and as per Rules and Regulations. Fees of learned Counsel Mrs R.R. Mane who was appointed in the present petition is quantified at Rs.2,000/-. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp1080.09