1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.340 of 2006. Anil Madhavrao Dhawde ..vs.. The State and 2 others. Mr.V.H.Khaparde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Sathianathan, Spl.P.P.for the State. CORAM: K.J.ROHEE & C.L.PANGARKAR,JJ. DATE : 25th September, 2006. P.C. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 17/8/2001 in connection with the offences punishable under M.C.O.C. Act. By judgment dated 30/4/2005 the petitioner was convicted under M.C.O.C. Act. 3. He had applied for furlough leave and by communication dated 12/6/2006 his application came to be rejected by respondent no.2 on the ground that proposed surety is not competent; that several serious offences have been registered against the petitioner and that in case of his release there can be threat to public peace and 2 tranquility. The petitioner has challenged the said order by this petition. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this was the first application moved by the petitioner. Three convicts (co-accused) were released on furlough and they reported in time. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case respondents feel that there is threat to public peace and tranquility because of the petitioner's release on furlough, he can be directed to reside away from the city and the police authorities can be directed to keep close watch on him. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that two cases are still pending against the petitioner in which there are allegations of serious offences. In case the petitioner is released, he may threaten the witnesses. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the statements recorded by the police authorities before the order dated 12/6/2002 is passed. We have perused those statements which certainly show that in case of release of petitioner, public peace and tranquility may be jeopardised. Besides the witnesses, whose statements were recorded during enquiry, thebre are confidential witnesses whose identity is not disclosed as yet. According to the learned A.P.P., there would be danger to their lives from the petitioner in case of 3 his release on furlough. 6. Considering all the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine. JUDGE JUDGE pzc