1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.229/2008 Tukaram s/o Vitthal Gopnarayan, Convict C – 3122, Central Prison, Amravati. .. Petitioner .. Versus .. 1. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Nagpur. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati. .. Respondents .......... Ms. Sangita Gaikee, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the respondents/State. .......... Coram : K.J. Rohee & B.P. Dharmadhikari, JJ Dated : 19 th June, 2008 Oral Judgment : (Per : K. J. Rohee, J.) 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner, who is a life convict, applied for grant of furlough leave. By order dated 9.1.2008 the competent 2 authority rejected furlough leave to the petitioner on the ground that in case he is released the public peace and tranquility would be endangered and as such the application came to be rejected under Rule 4 (4) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The petitioner has challenged the said order. 3. The reply filed by the respondents/State shows that on 3.3.2006 the petitioner was released on furlough leave for 14 days and he surrendered late by two days and, thereafter, the petitioner was released on parole on 11.11.2006 for 30 days and he surrendered in time. It is thus apparent that because of the release of the petitioner on furlough, there was no danger to public peace and tranquility and that is why on earlier occasion he was released. Thus, the reason given in the impugned order dated 9.1.2008 for rejecting furlough leave to the petitioner is not justified and consequently the order cannot be sustained. We, therefore, pass the following order : 4. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner be released on furlough leave for 15 days on usual conditions. 3 Rule is made absolute in above terms. The fees of the counsel appointed for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE ............