( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC.WRIT PETITION NO.744 OF 2009 MISC.WRIT PETITION NO.744 OF 2009 MISC.WRIT PETITION NO.744 OF 2009 Yusuf S/o.Kasam Soradia .. Applicant/ Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra (Through DIG Aurangabad) .. Respondents Smt.S.A.Dhamale for the Petitioner. Smt.U.V.Kejriwal, APP fo the State. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. R.G.KETKAR, JJ. R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This petition challenges the order dated February 4, 2009 passed by Deputy Inspector General, Central Division, Aurangabad. By that aorder application made by the petitioner on October 11, 2008 seeking furlough leave was rejected. 2. Mrs.S.A.Dhamale, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that rejection of furlough leave is against the provisions of law as also the Government Gazette No.PAR/007/GNL/327/PRS/3 Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai dated August 1, 2007 and that the authority has failed to consider that his mother was surety every time and consequently her standing as surety cannot be rejected on the ground that she is 57 years old. It was further contended that the petitioner did not mis-use liberty granted to him. However, because of some unavoidable circumstances, he overstayed after ( 2 ) completion of parole and furlough leave. At any rate, Mrs.Dhamale submitted that for overstay in furlough and parole leave petitioner was already punished and consequently the impugned order passed on that count, is wholely unsustainable. 3. Smt.Kejriwal, learned APP on the other hand invited our attention to the affidavit sworn by Shri.Sushil Chandrakant Kumbhar, Jailor Group-II and presently attached to Nashik Road Central Prison. She also invited our attention to Rules 4(4), 4(6) and 4(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough And Parole) Rules 1959. She laid stress on overstaying of the petitioner after his release on parole and furlough leave. 4. Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules provides as to when prisoners shall not be granted furlough. In particular, sub-rule (10) thereof provides for the categories of prisoners who shall not be considered for release on furlough and reads as under:- "Prisoners who have at any time escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough" 5. The assertions made by Mr.Kumbhar in paragraph 4 of ( 3 ) the affidavit that the petitioner overstayed parole and furlough leave, are not disputed. We are not impressed by the submissions made by learned Counsel Mrs.Dhamale on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was already punished for overstaying parole and furlough leave and hence the impugned order passed on that count is unsustainable. Having regard to sub-rule (10) of Rule 4 extracted hereinabove, we do not consider this case fit to release the petitioner on furlough leave. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. 6. We make it clear that the above overstaying of the petitioner shall not be taken into account by the concerned authority, in future, as and when the petitioner applies for furlough leave. Similarly in future if the petitioner applies for parole and makes out a case for it the above overstaying shall not be taken into account while considering his application. (SMT.RANJANA (SMT.RANJANA (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) DESAI, J.) DESAI, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)