-(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 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1420 OF 2007 Namdeo Laxman Bhakhre. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .. Mrs.Sonia Miskin, Adv. appointed for the Petitioner. Mrs.U.V.Kejariwal, APP, for the State. .. CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 21, 2007. DATED : SEPTEMBER 21, 2007. DATED : SEPTEMBER 21, 2007. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Advocate appointed for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner had preferred an application for furlough. The said application for furlough came to be rejected on the ground that on earlier occasion when the petitioner was released on parole leave, the petitioner did not surrender back in time and he overstayed the period of parole by 634 days. Even thereafter -(2)- the petitioner did not surrender back himself and he had to be arrested and brought back to prison. It is on these grounds that the application for furlough preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. Looking to the above facts, we cannot find any fault with the authorities in rejecting the application for furlough. No interference is called for. Writ Petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner prefers a fresh application for furlough it shall be considered on its own merits. [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]