1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.374/2008 [Shalikram Rupaji Ingole .vrs. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (East) Nagpur and another] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. N.A. Badar, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. D.M. Kale, APP for the respondents/State. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATED : AUGUST 14, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 20.4.2003 and by judgment dated 9.8.2004 he was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He is thus a life convict. 3. On 17.12.2007 he had applied for grant of furlough leave. By order dated 15.5.2008 the Competent Authority rejected the application on three grounds : (i) that public 2 peace and tranquility would be endangered because of his release; (ii) that in 2005 when he was released on furlough leave for two weeks, he did not surrender on due date and was required to be arrested after 23 days and (iii) the conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory. Thus, the application came to be rejected under Rule 4(4)(6)(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The petitioner has challenged the said order. 4. So far as the first ground of rejection is concerned, no material seems to have been placed on record to show that because of the release of the petitioner, public peace and tranquility would have been endangered. As regards unsatisfactory conduct of the petitioner, there is no report of the Superintendent of Prisons about his conduct. The only thing is that when he was released in 2005 for two weeks, he did not surrender on due date and was required to be arrested. Thus the application could have been rejected only under Rule 4(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. In view of this, we see no reason to disturb the order. Hence the order : The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande