{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.703 OF 2010 Harihant s/o Shrinikheti Yadav Age-Major Occ-Nil R/o At Present open prison, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Aurangabad 3. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisaraya, Bihar RESPONDENTS ....... Ms.Maya R.Jamdhade, Advocate for the petitioner (appointed) Mr. D.R.Kale, A.P.P. For respondents No.1 and 2 State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 14th September 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner, through jail, came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and we had {2} accordingly appointed Advocate Ms.Maya R.Jamdhade, as counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. In this petition, grievance of the petitioner is extremely limited inasmuch as the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to decide the application dated 23.02.2010 submitted by the petitioner seeking his release on furlough. 3. It appears that the petitioner, who is convicted and undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life, had submitted an application on 23.02.2010 seeking his release on furlough. The respondent authorities had called for police report from the Superintendent of Police, Lakhisaraya, Bihar. According to the respondents, the application of the petitioner has remained pending on account of want of report from the Superintendent of Police, Lakhisaraya, Bihar. Undisputedly, on earlier two occasions the petitioner had been released on furlough and he had returned back within time. There are also no allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner, after his release, had either threatened anyone or had committed any offence. 4. The application of the petitioner cannot be kept pending indefinitely merely on the ground that the Superintendent of Police Lakhisaraya, Bihar has not submitted police report. The respondents ought to have taken necessary action to ensure that the report is made available, including intimating Inspector General of Police, Bihar. All steps ought to have been taken by the {3} respondents to ensure that the police report is received within time and the application of the petitioner is not kept pending indefinitely. 5. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to decide the application submitted by the petitioner within 6 weeks from today, on its own merits. Necessary steps be taken by the respondents to ensure that the police report is received within that time. In the event the police report is not received, the respondents shall decide the application of the petitioner within the time specified by us, on its own merits taking into consideration the fact that on earlier two occasions the petitioner had been released on furlough and had not misused the discretion exercised by the authorities. 6. We accordingly make rule absolute by directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of 6 weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. In such circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Fees payable to the counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner are quantified at Rs.1500/- [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp703-10