-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 364 OF 2008 (Dinesh Ruprao Band vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri N.S. Bhat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for the respondents. ...... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE & B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. AUGUST 05, 2008. 1. Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2. The petitioner is in jail since 3.3.2001 in connection with the offence under sections 302, 363, 364 & 201 of Indian Penal Code. He was convicted by judgment dated 30.12.2003 and thus he is a life convict. 3. Sometime in November 2007, he had applied for furlough leave. However it was rejected by the Competent Authority by order dated 02.05.2008 on the ground that the landlord of his surety as well as the residents of Gosavi Colony, Amravati, where the petitioner intended to reside during furlough leave, objected to his residence there. Secondly, on the earlier occasion when the petitioner was released on -2- furlough leave, he overstayed for 232 days and thirdly the police report is adverse. The impugned order shows that the application is rejected under Rule 4(4) & (6) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959. It may be noted that the proper sub-rule to be applied in the present case would have been Rule 4(10), but the Competent Authority has resorted to Rule 4(4) & (6) of the Rules. 4. Prima facie, there is no material on record to justify the above reasons. It appears that the impugned order was passed without application of mind. Secondly, the petition shows that now the petitioner is proposing to stay with his another brother Vinod Ruprao Band as surety. 5. In view of these circumstances, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the matter will have to be sent back to the Competent Authority for reconsidering the same. Hence, the following order : Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2nd May 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is sent back to the Competent Authority to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner and to decide it afresh within reasonable time. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.