1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.343/2008 [Birsing Mansaram Chavhan .vrs. Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (East Range), Nagpur and another] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. N.A. Badar, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for the respondents/State. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATED : AUGUST 14, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner, who is a life convict, sought furlough leave. Furlough leave was rejected by the Competent Authority by order dated 9.1.2008 on the ground that the petitioner was habitually surrendering late. On two occasions, he surrendered late and on two occasions he was required to be arrested. Thus, the application was rejected under Rule 4(6)(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole), Rules 1959. The petitioner has challenged the said 2 order. 3. A bare perusal of the impugned order and the details of the furlough and parole leaves submitted by the respondents shows that in 1995 when the petitioner was released on parole leave, he surrendered late by 652 days; in 1999 when he was released on furlough leave, he surrendered late by 388 days; in 2001 when he was released on parole leave, at that time he was required to be arrested by the Police after 540 days and on the last occasion i.e. on 2004 when he was released on parole leave, he was required to be arrested by the Police after 628 days. It is thus apparent that the conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory and has defaulted in surrendering himself within time. As such the competent authority was justified in rejecting furlough leave to the petitioner. We find no illegality in the impugned order. Hence the order : The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande