1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.594 OF 2008 (Prisoner No.C-6655 Mohammad Firoz Mohammad Iqbal vs. State and another) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 22, 2008 Heard Ms. Nandita Dube, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. The petition is directed against the order dated 25.6.2008 passed by the D.I.G. (Prison) whereby application of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave came to be rejected on the ground that proposed surety, i.e. mother of the petitioner does not have any immovable property as well as in view of provisions of Rule 4(4) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Ms. Nandita Dube, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that on the earlier occasion, the petitioner was released once on parole leave and once on furlough leave. However, no untoward incident 2 had taken place and, therefore, apprehension expressed by the competent Authority in the impugned order in this regard is without justification. Shri Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents, supports the impugned order and states that on the earlier occasions when the petitioner was released on parole and furlough leave, he failed to surrender on due dates. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. In the instant case, the request of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave was primarily rejected on the ground that proposed surety, i.e. mother of the petitioner, does not have immovable property. However, there is nothing on record to show that release of the petitioner on furlough leave will affect public peace and tranquility. Be that as it may, we dispose of the criminal writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to furnish appropriate surety, which is valid in law and if such surety is furnished, we direct the competent Authority to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave in accordance with law. It is made clear that in such situation, the impugned order shall not come in the way of the competent Authority 3 to re-consider the request of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave. JUDGE JUDGE khj