1 wp-1754-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1754 OF 2011 Baya Abel Pereira ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondent Through jail. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for State. Mr.D.A.Nalawade for Union Territory of Daman & Diu. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 19, 2011. P.C. 1. This is a petition received from the jail and the petitioner – Smt. Baya Abel Pereira is a life convict presently undergoing sentence at Sub- Jail, Moti Daman. 2. A very limited grievance has been raised in this petition viz. 2 wp-1754-2011 rejection of her application for furlough leave. The furlough leave application was processed and the Superintendent of Police, Daman by his communication dated 6/4/2011 informed the Superintendent of Sub- Jail, Daman that the said application could not be recommended as the applicant was involved in a heinous crime of murder and the possibilities of disturbance of public peace and tranquility could not be ruled out if she is released on furlough leave. Consequently on 3/5/2011 the application for furlough leave came to be rejected by the I.G., Prisons, Daman 3. Mr.Nalawade, the learned Special PP appearing for the Union Territory of Daman and Diu has placed before us the original file. The communication dated 6/4/2011 addressed by the Superintendent of Police to the Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Daman and which is the foundation of rejection of the petitioner’s application for furlough leave is not supported by any material on record. If the concerned police station on conducting an enquiry in the neighbourhood / locality / village concerned had submitted a report against granting furlough leave, it would be a different matter. The Superintendent of Police without causing an enquiry could not have reached to the conclusion that if the petitioner would be released on furlough leave possibilities of disturbance of public peace and 3 wp-1754-2011 tranquility could not be ruled out. This is a very generalised opinion and which has caused denial of furlough leave and when such a view is not based on material, it cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, necessary that the petitioner’s application for furlough leave is reconsidered and at the same time it must be noted that furlough leave is a matter of right and it could be denied for justifiable reasons which must be of grave consequences. 4. Hence it is directed that the respondents shall consider the petitioner’s application for furlough leave afresh and pass an appropriate order within a period of two weeks from receipt of writ from this Court. 5. The petition is allowed in terms of the above directions. 6. Writ to go forthwith. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)