1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.774 OF 2010 Uttam Gajaba Ingale, C.No.6147, Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mrs. S.T.Kazi, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner Mr.N.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 8th OCTOBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of 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. We had accordingly appointed Advocate Mrs.S.T.Kazi, as a Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 2 3. A limited grievance of the petitioner is challenge to the order of cancellation of the furlough leave which was granted to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit the surety. It appears that the petitioner placed reliance upon certain orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in which the release was ordered on acceptance of cash surety. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has invited our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar, 2006 CRI.L.J.3279. The Supreme Court has held that the condition of release contemplates the furnishing of surety of the accused and unless and until surety is furnished, the accused cannot seek his release either on furlough and parole. In the light of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, according to us the petitioner cannot be granted the relief which the petitioner has prayed for. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One thousand five hundred). ( A.V. POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/774.10criwp) 3