1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1075 OF 2009 Subhash s/o Kisanrao Jamdhade, Age : Major, Occu. Nil, R/o at Present Central Jail, Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 2. The Commissioner of Police (Prison), Aurangabad 3. Superintendent of Police (Prison), Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr Vaibhav B. Dhage, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner; Mr V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16th December, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of 2 admission. 2. A letter sent by the petitioner taking exception to the order of the respondents dated 27.10.2009 rejecting the application of the petitioner for his release on furlough came to be registered as a Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Advocate Shri Vaibhav Dhage as a Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. The learned Counsel has filed a comprehensive petition raising several grounds for challenging the impugned order. It appears that the petitioner came to be convicted by the judgment of the Trial Court dated 30.1.2008. Consequently the petitioner has not undergone two years of actual imprisonment. As per the Rules a convict becomes entitle to apply for his release on furlough only in the event he undergoes actual imprisonment of two years. In that light of the matter, therefore, the petitioner has not become eligible to be considered for his release on furlough. The application of the petitioner was, therefore, premature. We are not inclined to interfere in the present petition and according to us the petition deserves to be dismissed. We, however, grant liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh after he undergoes actual imprisonment of two years. 3. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. We quantify the fees 3 payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner for the valuable assistance rendered to the Court, at Rs.2,000/-. ( R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp1075.09