1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.156/2009 Vinod Govinda Kenekar, Convict NO.C-2402, Central Prison, Amravati Petitioner. Versus 1] The State of Mah. Through the D.I.G. Prisons (E)(R) Nagpur. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati. Respondents ,... Mr. M.P. Lala, Advocate (appointed under Legal Aid Scheme) for the petitioner. Mrs. A.R. Taiwade, APP for the respondents. ..... Coram : A.P. Lavande & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. Dated :11th June, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.P. Lavande, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Doifode, learned APP for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2 3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 24.11.208 passed by respondent no.1 rejecting furlough leave to the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment at Amravati Central Jail for having committed offence punishable under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents as well as impugned order discloses that in the year 2007 the petitioner was released on parole leave however, he surrendered late by 53 days and that the petitioner was released on furlough leave in August 2008 and he surrendered late by 16 days. 5. Mr. Lala submits that appropriate punishment has been imposed on the petitioner for late surrender and, therefore, the respondent no.1 was not justified in passing the impugned order. 6. Per contra, Mr. Doifode, learned APP supports the impugned order passed by respondent no.1. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP 3 and having perused the record, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In terms of Rule 4(10) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959, respondent no.1 was justified in refusing furlough leave to the petitioner on the ground that on earlier occasions the petitioner had not reported in time after he was released on furlough and parole leave. Hence, In our opinion, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order passed by respondent no.1 8. For the reasons aforesaid, Rule is discharged. 9. Fees payable to Advocate M.P. Lala, who is appointed under Legal Aid Scheme are quantified at Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand only). JUDGE JUDGE