1 wp1904.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1904 OF 2010 Yavraj Bharat Gaikwad ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ....Respondent. Smt. Sonia S. Miskin, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- SEPTEMBER 28, 2010. P.C. 1. This Petition is filed through jail. The grievance of the Petitioner seems to be that the two conditions imposed by the appropriate authorities to enable the Petitioner to avail of furlough leave is excessive and unreasonable. The first condition is that the Petitioner should furnish personal bond. In so far as this condition is concerned, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the order of the appropriate authority imposing the said condition. It is consistent with the rules in force. 2. The second condition is requiring the petitioner to furnish two sureties, one surety being relative of the Petitioner who will receive the Petitioner while 2 wp1904.10 on furlough leave and the second surety should be other than relative, both in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. 3. In so far as the requirement of furnishing relative surety who will receive the Petitioner, that is as per the rules in force. That cannot be relaxed. The insistence of the appropriate authority for furnishing another surety cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that no specific ground has been mentioned in the impugned decision justifying requirement of furnishing two separate sureties. In the circumstances, that condition will have to be set aside. However, at the same time, the Petitioner will be obliged to furnish solvent surety of relative, who will receive the Petitioner while on furlough leave. 4. The argument of the learned APP is that the surety offered by the Petitioner does not have immovable property in his own name. Reliance is placed on the report of the local police officials dated nil, which mentions that fact. However, the report does not specifically note that the relative surety does not possess immovable proper in his own name. In other words, if the relative surety offered by the Petitioner can be accepted as solvent surety as per the prescribed norms, there is no reason why the authority should not accept the same. 3 wp1904.10 5. It is brought to our notice that the time of furlough leave specified in the impugned order has expired on 28th July, 2010. If the Petitioner complies with the required conditions keeping in mind the above observations, we hope and trust that the authority would extend the period suitably. Accordingly, this Petition succeeds on the above terms. 6. Court expresses a word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the advocate appointed to espouse the cause of the petitioner. 6. Copy of this order be forwarded forthwith to the Petitioner who is in jail. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)