1 wp2052.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2052 OF 2010 Umaji Chandu Chavan. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. D.G.Khamkar, advocate for petitioner. Ms. A.T.Jhaveri, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 5, 2010. P.C. 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that direction be issued to the Respondent to return cash security of Rs.10,000/- to the Petitioner, which was taken from him as security for releasing the Petitioner on furlough leave. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he returned back to the jail within the specified time. According to him, the amount of security was required to be returned to the Petitioner. This argument has been rightly countered by the learned APP. 3. From the report of the concerned official, which is produced before us, it 2 wp2052.10 is noticed that the Petitioner during the furlough leave period not only involved himself in commission of offence, albeit non-cognisable, which has been registered with Salgar Vasti Police Station, Solapur. Besides the said offence, a chapter case has also been registered against the petitioner during the said period. In that sense, the Petitioner has violated the furlough leave condition and therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the Respondent in not returning cash security amount to the Petitioner on account of condition contained in the bond executed by the Petitioner. The argument of the Petitioner that the N.C. Complaint has not been taken forward by the complainant, does not commend to us. The fact that no formal private complaint has been filed, does not mean that no offence has been committed by the Petitioner. The fact that the N.C. complaint has been registered against the Petitioner is not disputed before us. It is also not disputed that a chapter case has also been filed against the Petitioner during the same period while he was enjoying the furlough leave. That presupposes that the Petitioner has jumped the conditions provided in the furlough leave order and as a consequence of which, the Authority was entitled to forfeit the cash security amount furnished by the Petitioner as a condition for grant of such leave. In the circumstances, this Petition is rejected. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)