1 wp350.3521.1892 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.350 OF 2010 Jaushad Alam Siddiqui. ....Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ....Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.352 OF 2010 Barkya Mithya Gharat. ....Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ....Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1894 OF 2010 Banti @ Sachin Dilliprao Chawan. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ....Respondent. Smt. Indrayani Koparkar, advocate for the petitioner in WP 350/10. Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, advocate for petitioner in WP 352/10. None for petitioner in WP 1894/10. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for State in WP 350/10 & 352/10. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 8, 2010. P.C. 1. By these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India received 2 wp350.3521.1892 through jail, validity of order dated 4th December, 2009 passed by the appropriate authority is put in issue. 2. Considering the fact that large number of writ petitions are received through jail challenging order of either refusing furlough leave or for that matter imposing excessive condition while granting such applications are filed before this court, it was suggested to the learned APP that the Government may consider of evolving mechanism of providing one remedy of appeal against such orders before the appropriate authority. It appears that the Government has considered the suggestion and is in the process of formulating necessary scheme whereunder the orders passed on the application for releasing convicts on furlough leave can be challenged by way of appeal by the convicts before the Inspector General of Prisons. That remedy would be analogous to remedy available to convicts against the order passed on parole leave application. We are informed that the scheme will be introduced shortly, in any case, within six weeks from today. Assurance so given by the learned APP is accepted. 3. Our attention was invited to the order passed on 17th August, 2010 by the previous bench, which observes that the present petitions ought to proceed before the Single Judge of this court instead of Division Bench. We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned APP that the said question 3 wp350.3521.1892 has been authoritatively answered in the case of Ramchandra Raghu Naik v/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2005(3) Mh.L.J.933. It has been held that the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed on furlough leave application or parole leave application, as the case may be, should necessarily proceed before Division Bench of this Court. In view of the said decision, we will proceed to decide the present writ petitions on merits. 4. Insofar as the impugned order in all these petitions is concerned, the only reason, which has weighed the appropriate authority, can be discerned from the adverse police report. The police report indicates that the witnesses in the criminal case in which petitioner(s) eventually came to be convicted apprehend that if the Petitioners were released on furlough leave, they may face threat to their life. 5. Insofar as this noting is concerned, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the appropriate authority has completely glossed over the fact that it is its discretion to impose strict conditions on the convict for releasing him on furlough leave. Apprehension of the witnesses in the criminal case, in which the Petitioner(s) have been convicted, can be assuaged by either imposing strict 4 wp350.3521.1892 conditions for staying in the same locality or for that matter, even restricting entry of the Petitioners in the same locality during the furlough leave period. These are matters, which will have to be examined by the appropriate authority. We express no final opinion on that aspect. In other words, merely because witnesses have expressed apprehension, that by itself can be no basis to deny furlough leave, which is statutory right available to convicts, as has been consistently held by this High Court. Accordingly, we dispose of these petitions with direction to the appropriate authority to reconsider furlough leave applications of the Petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, in any case, not later than two weeks from receipt of the copy of this order. 6. The Court expresses a word of gratitude for the able assistance given by advocate appointed to espouse cause of Petitioners. 7. Copy of this order be forwarded forthwith to the Petitioner who is in jail. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)