1 Criminal W.P.No. 375 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 375 OF 2011 Dashrath s/o Raghunath Gutthe, Age : Major, occu.Nil, R/o At present located Central Prison, Aurangabad Convict No.7003 ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad 3. Superintendent of Police, Hingoli ..RESPONDENTS Mrs Monica R. Dahat, Advocate for the petitioner; Mrs S.D. Shelke, Asstt. Public Prosecutor for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 21st June, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P. V. HARDAS, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 Criminal W.P.No. 375 of 2011 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Advocate Mrs Monica Dahat, learned Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking his release on furlough. It appears that the application of the petitioner came to be rejected, principally on the grounds that the petitioner and the complainant and relatives belong to one village and, therefore, there was every likelihood that the petitioner may threaten the complainant and his relatives. 4. On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply it is again reiterated that the police report was adverse and, therefore, the application of the petitioner for his release on furlough came to be rejected. Mrs Dahat, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that apart from the mere ipse dixit of the police officers, there was no objective material for the authorities to have recorded this subjective satisfaction. It is further stated that the applicant, during the trial, had not threatened the complainant or the relatives, at least no such allegations were made against the petitioner. It is further stated before us that the apprehension 3 Criminal W.P.No. 375 of 2011 of the prosecution can be allayed by putting the petitioner to certain strict terms. 5. Apart from the mere ipse dixit of the police officers that the petitioner was likely to threaten the complainant and his relatives, there does not appear to be any concrete objective material. The petitioner, during the trial, is not alleged to have threatened the complainant. Moreover, the petitioner had not been released earlier either on parole or on furlough in order to test whether the petitioner would indulge in this kind of activity. However, since the petitioner is seeking his release on furlough on the ground that he has completed two years of imprisonment, according to us, the petitioner ought to have been released as such. The apprehension of the respondent - State can be allayed by putting the petitioner to certain strict terms and conditions. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on furlough for such period as the respondents consider fit and proper and on such terms as the respondents consider appropriate including a condition that the petitioner shall report his presence to the Kallamnuri police station every alternate day during the period the petitioner has been granted furlough. 4 Criminal W.P.No. 375 of 2011 7. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner quantified at Rs.1,500/-. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp375.11