1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. WRIT PETITION NO.191 OF 2011 (BINDRA ORILAL JOSHI..VS.. STATE OF MAH. & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. I.S.Charlewar, Advocate (appointed) for Petitioner. Mr. T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for Respondents. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : APRIL 11, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. It is the case of the petitioner that he has preferred an application for furlough in February, 2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said application for furlough came to be rejected on 13.04.2010. Hence, he has prayed that the said order be set aside and he be granted furlough. The affidavit filed by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur shows that on 12.07.2005 the petitioner was released on furlough. However, he did not report back in the prison on time and there was overstay of 1013 days by the petitioner. The petitioner had to be ultimately arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. Thereafter the petitioner preferred present application for furlough, which came to be rejected on the ground of earlier overstay. 2 Rule 4(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 deals with the cases when the persons shall not be granted furlough. Rule 4(10) reads as under : “Rule 4 :- When prisoners shall not be granted furlough : (10) Prisoners who have at any time escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough” Present application for furlough has been rejected, inter alia, under Rule 4(10) of the said Rules. This Court, in the case of Ramchandra Raghu Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1919, has observed that in a case where a prisoner does not report back to prison after expiry of furlough leave period and overstays for a period of 93 days or 604 days, and even thereafter has to be arrested for the purpose of inducting him again in the prison, undoubtedly, it cannot be said that such a person deserves any leniency. In case of such a person, certainly Rule 4(10) would invariably apply. An overstay without any justification and without any reason can hardly be condoned and, therefore, no unwarranted leniency can be shown to such a person or persons while applying Rule 4(10) of the Furlough Rules. Once a person is given a facility, he cannot go on abusing it and then claim, he should get the facility as of right. In view of the above fact, we find no error in the order of the concerned authorities rejecting the application for 3 furlough. It is also pertinent to note that in the present case the petitioner has preferred this petition by post. He was not in jail at the time he preferred this petition. The affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur shows that on 05.11.2010 the petitioner was released on death parole for 7 days and the petitioner has not surrendered till today i.e. as of today he is absconding. No relief can be granted to such a person. In view of the above fact, no case for interference is made out. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Office to pay fees to the appointed counsel as per Rules. JUDGE JUDGE RR..