Cri.Writ Petition No.1034/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1034 OF 2010 Raheman Peermohamad Shaikh, C.No.4364, Open Jail, Paithan, District Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Special Inspector General (Prisons) and Deputy Inspector General, Prisons, Central Division, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr Ujjwal S.Patil, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Mrs R.K.Ladda, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 10th January 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail challenging the decision of the respondents dated 6.10.2010 declining to grant furlough to the petitioner was registered as Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Advocate Mr Ujjwal S.Patil, learned Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. Cri.Writ Petition No.1034/2010 2 3. It appears that the petitioner, who is a convict undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and who has undergone 7 years, 6 months and 17 days, applied for his release on furlough. The respondents by the impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that on an earlier occasion when the petitioner had been released on furlough, the petitioner had married one Ruksana Babu Shaikh. It appears that the marriage of the petitioner with Ruksana was not liked by the family members and after the petitioner had surrendered to his furlough, Ruksana began to reside at her parents’ house in Allahabad. The respondents, therefore, apprehended that if the petitioner was released on furlough, the petitioner was either likely to abscond or to threaten and cause alarm harm to the family members of the petitioner and to Ruksana. 4. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply and in the affidavit-in-reply the said contentions are reiterated. According to us this cannot be a ground for refusing or to deny furlough to the petitioner. There is absolute no material on record to suggest that the relations were strained on account of the marriage of the petitioner with Ruksana. There is also no objective material, on the basis of which the authorities can come to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to seek vengeance on account of the opposition of his relatives to the marriage. In any event the fact that the petitioner does not abscond can be taken care of by imposing certain conditions. The apprehension of the prosecution which is two fold can be allayed by putting the petitioner to certain terms and conditions. Cri.Writ Petition No.1034/2010 3 5. We accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned communication and direct the authorities to release the petitioner on furlough. While releasing the petitioner on furlough the respondents may impose condition that the petitioner shall reside within jurisdiction of the local Police Station of Market Yard, Ambedkar Nagar, Opposite Gausiya Masjid, Pune. The respondents may also impose a condition that the petitioner shall refer his attendance daily at the concerned police station either in the morning or in the evening. According to us, imposing of the aforesaid conditions would ensure that the petitioner would not abscond and would not take law in his hand. 6. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. 7. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One thousand five hundred). ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/1034.2010criwp) Cri.Writ Petition No.1034/2010 4