1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No.473/2008 (G.L. Munde .vs. State of Mah. And one ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for Respondents. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE &, A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner was convicted by judgment dated 17.3.2001 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and is thus a life convict. 4. On 13.10.2007, the petitioner had applied for furlough. However, by order dated 31.1.2008 the Competent Authority rejected the application under Rule 4 (4)(6)(10) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The petitioner has challenged the said order of rejection. 5. So far as the ground under Rule 4(4) is concerned, there is no material to show that because of the release of the petitioner, public 2 peace and tranquility would be endangered. There is also no material to show that the conduct of the petitioner while in jail was not satisfactory in the opinion of the Superintendent of Prison. Thus Rule 4 (6) is also not applicable. So far as Rule 4 (10) is concerned, it is contended that on the previous occasion in 2004 when the petitioner was released on furlough leave for two weeks , he did not surrender on due date and was arrested by Police after 158 days. It is also contended that the wife of the petitioner who was his surety lodged false report with the Police that the petitioner might have committed suicide and thus she helped the petitioner to abscond. On this background there appears sufficient justification for rejecting furlough leave to the petitioner under Rule 4 (10) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. As such there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. We, therefore, pass the following order. The petition is dismissed. The fees of the Advocate appointed for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE halwai 3