1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 182/2009 Ganga Hira Manjre, Convict No. C-3423 Central Prison, Amravati. ... Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. Through the D.I.G. Prisons (E) (R) Nagpur. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati. ... Respondents .... Mr. N.S. Bhat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Doifode, A.P.P. for the respondents. .... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ . DATE : 30/06/2009 JUDGMENT : (PER A.P.LAVANDE,J) Heard Mr. N.S. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Doifode, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. 2 2. Rule. 3. By consent heard forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17.1.2009 passed by the respondent no.1 refusing furlough to the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that furlough has been rejected to the petitioner on the following grounds. 1. Surety Jamnabai Railiwale offered by the petitioner is not fit to stand as surety. 2. The petitioner had given threats to the informant and the witnesses when he was released on furlough on 29.6.2007. 5. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, we fail to understand how Jamnabai Railiwale the mother-in-law of the petitioner is disqualified to stand as surety on the sole ground that she is 70 years old. Jamnabai Railiwale, the mother-in-law of the petitioner surely is in a position to have control on the petitioner. Therefore, we find no merit in the first ground. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, pursuant to the direction given by this court the respondents have carried out further fresh inquiry and have recorded statements of several witnesses and the same are placed on record. Perusal of the same discloses that the petitioner had not given any threat to the informant or the witnesses but some other accused had 3 given threats. Therefore, second ground also does not stand. 6. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to release the petitioner on furlough for a period of two weeks subject to compliance of the Rules and further subject to the condition that during the period of furlough the petitioner shall report at Washim Police Station on every alternate day between 10 to 12.00 p.m.. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 8. The fees payable to Advocate Mr.N.S.Bhat who was appointed to appear on behalf of the petitioner is quantified at Rs. 1000/-. JUDGE JUDGE patle