1 asppa1247.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1247 OF 2010 In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.177 OF 2005 Vishram Kama Vanel : Applicant (Orig.Accused No.1) V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.Md.Iqbal Y. Solkar for the applicant. Ms M.H.Mhatre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE,JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 29, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application is directed against the impugned order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the Competent Authority whereby the application of the applicant for grant of furlough leave came to be rejected on two grounds, viz., adverse police report and late surrender of the applicant before the jail authority by 23 days in the year 2006 and 16 days in 2009, 2 asppa1247.10 in view of rule 4(10). The counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was released on furlough leave by this Court vide order dated 16.9.2009. The operative part of the said order reads thus:- “Therefore, we do not find that there was any reason for the respondents to reject the application of the applicant-prisoner. We allow this application and direct release of the applicant on furlough on usual terms and conditions. Application is disposed of.” The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was under the impression that the period of furlough leave granted to the applicant was for 30 days from the date of release and, therefore, the due date of surrender cannot be treated to be 25.10.2009 since the applicant was released on furlough leave on 11.10.2009 and surrendered before the jail authorities on 10.11.2009. It is submitted that in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant surrendered late before the jail authorities and, therefore, the impugned order in view of this factual background cannot be sustained in law. 3 asppa1247.10 3. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that this Court vide order dated 16.9.2009 directed the authorities to release the applicant on furlough on usual terms and conditions. As per the procedure, the applicant was factually released from prison on furlough leave on 11.10.2009 for a period of 14 days from the date of release. It is further contended that the Competent Authority, in view of the procedure, is entitled to release the prisoner on furlough leave at a time only for 14 days. Since the applicant was released on 11.10.2009 on furlough for 14 days, his due date of surrender was 25.10.2009. However, the applicant surrendered before the Jail Authorities on 10.11.2009 i.e. 16 days late. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that since the applicant surrendered late on the earlier occasion, the Competent Authority by the impugned order rejected the prayer of the applicant for grant of furlough leave on the basis of this ground of late surrender as well as on the basis of other grounds which are mentioned in the impugned order. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed bay the respective counsel. On the back-drop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the applicant was released on furlough leave for a period of 14 days with effect from 11.10.2009 and was, therefore, required to surrender before 4 asppa1247.10 the Jail Authorities on 25.10.2009. However, he failed to do that and surrendered before the Jail Authorities only on 10.11.2009 i.e. 16 days late. As per the provisions of rule 4(10), the Competent Authority, under such circumstances, is entitled to reject the subsequent furlough application of the applicant. In the instant case, the power is exercised by the Competent Authority under rule 4(10) and rejected the application of the applicant for furlough. The Competent Authority has also given other reasons in the impugned order for rejecting the applicant's application for grant of furlough leave. Taking an over-all view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the Competent Authority, in our view, is just and fair and is also sustainable in law. No case is made out for showing indulgence. 5. Criminal Application is dismissed. Needless to mention that in view of rule 9, the applicant will be entitled to make a fresh application for furlough leave after expiry of six months from 21.8.2010. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A.P. BHANGALE,J.)