1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 354 OF 2010 Sham Shankar Kankariya .. ..Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra .. ..Respondent. Mr. Murtuza Nazmi for the Petitioner. Mrs A.S. Pai.A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 17TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties taken up for final hearing. Mrs Pai, learned A.P.P., waives service for the Respondent. 3. By this petition, through jail, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.11.2009 whereby his furlough application dated 21.9.2009 has been rejected. His application has been rejected on two grounds. Firstly, the surety does not live in the same locality where the petitioner lives, and secondly, on three earlier occasions he did not surrender on time. 2 4. We have perused the order, so also the other documents produced on record. Mr Murtuza Nazmi, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in Bharat @ Velji Govindji Panchal @ Lohar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1624/2004 decided on 28.6.2006 and submitted that the concerned authority is obliged to exercise its discretion while considering the application for furlough of the prisoner who over stayed on earlier occasions. We have perused the judgment in Bharat @ Velji’s case and more particularly paragraph Nos. 26 to 31 thereof. The case of the petitioner falls in the second category, namely, the prisoners over staying and returning on their own accord. The petitioner was granted parole leave on 7.3.2008 for a period of 30 days and he over stayed by 45 days and surrendered on 22.5.2008. Paragraph 31 of the judgment in Bharat @ Velji’s case reads thus: “Regarding second category i.e.,prisoners over staying but returning on their own accord, grant of the furlough has been left by us to the discretion of the authorities depending upon the facts and circumstances like the period of over stay, the explanation given and the conduct of the prisoner in jail after his return.” 3. Keeping the aforesaid observations in view and considering the grounds on which the petitioner’s application for 3 furlough leave has been rejected, we are inclined to direct the concerned authority, namely, D.I.G.(Prison) and Additional I.G. (Prison), Aurangabad to consider the petitioner’s furlough application dated 21.9.2009 afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court in Bharat @ Velji ’s case. Order accordingly. We expect the concerned authority to decide the application dated 21.9.2009 afresh, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to state that the order passed on the application will be communicated to the petitioner in the jail within a period of four weeks therefrom. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. All concerned to act on an authenticate copy of this order. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)