0704cwp82.11.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.82 OF 2011. Surfuddin Jamaluddin Sheikh ..vs.. The D.I.G.Prison (E)(R) Nagpur and anr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.P.Deshpande Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.D.B.Yengal, APP for the State. CORAM : MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : 7th APRIL, 2011. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his application for furlough came to be rejected. 3. The application for furlough came to be rejected on the ground that there is likelihood of the petitioner absconding. It was also rejected on the ground that on the last occasion when the petitioner was released on furlough he was involved in a case under Section 380 of I.P.C. The records pertaining to a petitioner show that in 2004 when the petitioner was on furlough he surrendered late. Thereafter, he was released on furlough in 2007. That time also he did not surrender in time and overstayed 0704cwp82.11.odt 2/4 for 94 days and he had to be arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on furlough in 2009, again he did not surrender in time and in fact he was involved in a case under Section 380 of IPC vide C.R.No. 201 of 2009 registered at Police Station Meghwadi. The police took him into custody and thereafter he was sent to Nagpur Central Prison. On this occasion there was overstay of 129 days. 4. Thus, it is noticed that on the last occasion when the petitioner was released on furlough not only did he overstay but he was involved in a criminal case. Thus, the apprehension expressed by the authorities that if the petitioner is released on furlough he will abscond, cannot be said to be without any basis. 5. Second ground on which the application for furlough was rejected was that on the last occasion when the petitioner was released on furlough, he was involved in a case under Section 380 of IPC. Looking to both the grounds, we find no error in the order rejecting the application for furlough inter alia under Rule 4(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Rule 4(10) provides as under - 4. When prisoners shall not be granted furlough.- The following categories of prisoners shall not be considered for release on furlough:- 0704cwp82.11.odt 3/4 (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 on furlough. 6. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Ramchandra Raghu Naik ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1919 has held that - “In a case where a prisoner does not report back to the prison after the expiry of the 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 person, certainly the 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 Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.” 0704cwp82.11.odt 4/4 In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Writ petition is rejected. The learned appointed Advocate be paid fees as per rules. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Central Prison, Nagpur. JUDGE JUDGE chute