1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.878 OF 2011 Eknath Murlidhar Wakade Age 37 years, occ.Driver r/o Wadgaon Kolhati, Pandharpur, Aurangabad. ..Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Jail Harsool, Aurangabad. ..Respondents ... Shri S.S.Kingaonkar, Advocate for petitioner and Shri V.D.Godbharale, APP for Respondents ... CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. Dated : October 14, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.H.Joshi, J.) :- 1. Rule. 2. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard. 3. Brother of the petitioner was the life convict. While undergoing the sentence, he was released on furlough. He reported late by two days. In the interregnum period, the appeal of the convict was allowed on 29.8.2011 and he was released on 3.9.2011. 2 5. Petitioner is aggrieved, as the surety amount deposited by him in cash in the office of the Tahsildar, Aurangabad has not been released. He was informed that the amount has been forfeited on account of convict's reporting late by two days in the prison, after availing furlough. 6. Tahsildar, Aurangabad has queried the Jail authority, as to whether amount could be returned, by letter dated 27.4.2011. Said letter is replied by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Aurangabad on 19.5.2011 and it has been informed that due to failure of the prisoner in reporting the Jail on time, the amount of surety bond is not liable to be refunded. 7. Learned APP has tendered, for perusal of the Court, the relevant papers. 8. The fact of forfeiture is alleged by petitioner and admitted by the respondents. 9. The record disclose that the petitioner as a surety or prisoner, were not noticed before the communication dt.19.5.2011. It is also seen that any order of forfeiture of the bond amount is not passed. 3 10. We have considered the background that:- (a) The prisoner has reported late only by two days, (b) neither the petitioner or the prisoner were served with any notice, (c) none amongst them were heard before forfeiture of the security amount, (d) there is no order of forfeiture of security amount and (e) the prisoner is already released form Jail on acquittal. We are of the considered view that the security is liable to be refunded being illegally detained and claimed to have been forfeited without hearing and without any order. 11. We, therefore, direct the Tahsildar, Aurangabad and Superintendent of Central Jail, Aurangabad to refund to the petitioner the amount of cash security deposited of Rs.25,000/- which was made for validation of the surety bond dated 25.2.2011, executed by the petitioner for releasing his brother - prisoner Tukaram Murlidhar Wakade on furlough. The refund be made withint thirty days from today. 12. Rule made absolute accordingly. 13. Additional Public Prosecutor is directed to 4 communicate this order to the Superintendent of Jail and Tahsildar, Aurangabad. 14. Steno copy is allowed. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.H.JOSHI, J.) ... akl