1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.246/2008 [Ramrao Punaji Jadhav .vrs. The State of Maharashtra and others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Ms. S.R. Gaikee, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, APP for the respondents. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ DATED : JULY 11, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is a life convict. His application for furlough was rejected by the competent authority by order dated 31.1.2008. The petitioner, in his letter, has made grievance not only against rejection of the order against him by order dated 31.1.2008 but also about rejection of parole leave on the previous occasion. However, no orders in that respect are produced on record and in the present proceedings we are not concerned with the rejection of parole to the petitioner. 2 3. The impugned order dated 31.1.2008 shows that on 9.12.1999 the petitioner was granted furlough for two weeks. However, he did not surrender on due date. He absconded and was arrested on 2.12.2005 by the police. Thus, he overstayed 2170 days and that is why there is apprehension that in case he again released on furlough, he may abscond. Hence furlough came to be rejected under Rule 4(6)(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959. 4. It is true that the petitioner was punished for overstaying, however, this would not mean that the competent authority was not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough on that ground. Thus, we find no substance in the petition. The same is, therefore, rejected. 5. The competent authority is, however, directed to consider the petitioner's application for parole, if any, made by him in future and decide it on its own merit. 6. The fees of the counsel appointed for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande