IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC.APPLICATION NO.394 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.37 OF 2008 Vishnu Gangaram Pilankar .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Ms.S.A.Dhamale for the Applicant. Mr.S.R.Shinde, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : APRIL 8TH, 2009. P.C. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. This is the application for extension of furlough leave earlier granted to the convict applicant, the conviction under section 2 of MCOC Act and sentenced for five years by the Court of Sessions, Mumbai. Reportedly, out of five years, he had already undergone four years of imprisonment. Earlier, vide order of this court dated 6th 1 February, 2009, directions were given to grant furlough to the Applicant for the period of 15 days ending on 11th March, 2009 and to surrender before the authority on 12th March, 2009. However, it appears that the Applicant overstayed and in fact prior to completion of initial 15 days of furlough, he applied to the concerned authority on 5th March, 2009, for extension of furlough. Said application was not ordered hence, this applicant came before this Court. In the said application on 17th March, 2009, directions were given to the concerned authority to decide the application of the applicant for extension of earlier granted furlough. On such directions, order came to be passed rejecting the extension of furlough leave. Allegedly there are no grounds mentioned in the said order. Said order is impugned in the present application. 3. It appears that Applicant applied initially for furlough for getting medical treatment to his wife. Reportedly, his elder brother is also available for the said work. Moreover, during the period of earlier granted furlough, he did not utilize the time for the medical treatment, on the alleged ground that mother of his wife expired and some days were wasted in last rites. Even, thereafter, Applicant did not surrender even till today. A medical certificate is shown to the Court, which is not annexed in the present matter, mentions that the wife of the Applicant is required to be taken to KEM Hospital, Mumbai for further medical treatment. Said letter shows the date as 3rd April, 2 2009. Since then also the Appellant not taken any step to take his wife to Mumbai which the Applicant or his elder brother would very well have done. 4. Considering the above, and considering the overstay of the Applicant, he is directed to surrender before the appropriate Authority and again to apply a fresh mentioning all the grounds, and the concerned authority to decide the application within two weeks on merits from the date of the application. If the applicant does not surrender, then appropriate action shall be taken by the concerned authority. 5. With the above directions the present Application is disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) 3