:< 1 >: :< 1 >: :< 1 >: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2139 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 2139 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO. 2139 OF 2008. Gulab Abasha Bhosale, Bandi No. 6609, Mumbai Central Prison Mumbai -11. ..Petitioner. V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. --- None for the petitioner. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the respondent - State. Dattatraya Mandalik, Police Suprintendant Osmanabad is present. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & CORAM: S.B.MHASE & CORAM: S.B.MHASE & R.V.MORE, JJ. R.V.MORE, JJ. R.V.MORE, JJ. DATE : October 24, 2008. DATE : October 24, 2008. DATE : October 24, 2008. Oral Judgment (Per S. B. Mhase,J.) Oral Judgment (Per S. B. Mhase,J.) Oral Judgment (Per S. B. Mhase,J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Heard. This is a petition by a convict who has been in jail for 13 years and it appears that for 13 years no furlough leave has been granted to the petitioner. In fact the furlough is a valuable right of the accused and also of the family members of the accused who have an association with the accused. 3. It is interesting to note that this petitioner has been brought to the Bombay Central Prison in June 2008 and he is working in the Central Prison as a Warden, supervising the other convicts and undertrial prisoners. This itself shows that the conduct of the petitioner while in jail was remarkably good and therefore he has been selected and appointed as Warden in the Central Prison to supervise other accused persons. Such convict has made a request for :< 2 >: :< 2 >: :< 2 >: furlough on the ground of illness of his wife. 4. The report from the Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad was called for since the petitioner desired to stay at village Magar Sangavi. Unfortunately, the Superintendent of Police, Osmanbad entrusted the enquiry to the Police Patil of Kati-Sangavi when the petitioner is supposed to stay at Magar-Sangavi. How the report from the Police Patil of Magar-Sangavi is relevant cannot be understood. The report is a funny report stating that for the first time the petitioner is going out on furlough, therefore nothing can be said about his conduct and even though Suman Bhosale, the mother of the petitioner, is ready to stand as surety for the petitioner, it has been observed by the Superintendent of Police that she is not the proper surety. Such an inference is drawn on what basis is not known from the file which is produced before this court. It is further stated in the report that the illness of the petitioner’s wife is not of serious nature. That report is based on what basis is also not known. And, above all the question of scrutiny of illness was not open for the Superintended of Police because there was earlier petition by the petitioner bearing No. 1228 of 2007, in which this Court has directed that in case the petitioner furnishes an executable surety, the Authorities to release the petitioner on usual terms :< 3 >: :< 3 >: :< 3 >: and conditions. The Superintendent of Police has ignored this order of this Court. Therefore, the Suprintendent of Police was under the obligation to see whether there is proper surety available or not. However, as usual the Government Officers overlook the orders of this Court and try to deal with the matter in their own way forgetting that they are under the directions of the High Court, has passed the impugned order. 5. Above all, we are surprised to note that when there is a direction to release the person on parole, the Divisional Commissioner has ignored the said order and relied upon the report of the Superintendent of Police and rejected the parole of the petitioner. We express displeasure in respect of the conduct of Mr. Dattatray Mandlik, the Superintendent of Police, Osmanbad and also of the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Bhavan, who has refused the parole to the petitioner. We expect that henceforth the Authorities of the State will be careful in considering the cases of the furlough and parole of the accused persons. 6. Since we find that there are no justifiable reasons to refuse the parole to the petitioner. The petitioner is hereby directed to be released on parole for a period of 30 days on accepting the surety of his :< 4 >: :< 4 >: :< 4 >: mother Sumanbai Abasha Bhosale. Rule made absolute in the above terms. (R.V.MORE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)