Crim.WP 1083/10 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1083/2010 Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare, age 25 yrs., occu.Convict No.7994, r/o Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik, Permanent r/o Sujalgaon Tq.Naygaon Dist.Nanded. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3] The Superintendent of Police, Nanded. Dist.Nanded. 4] The Superintendent of Jail, General Jail, Nashik Road, Nashik. ...Respondents... ..... Shri Manish P. Tripathi, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.R. Shaikh, APP for respondents. ..... Crim.WP 1083/10 - 2 - CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 16.12.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V. Hardas, J.) : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2] The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order passed by the Special Inspector of Prison, Aurangabad, dated 21.10.2010, rejecting the application of the petitioner for his release on furlough. The application came to be rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner, if released on furlough, was likely to harm or threaten the witnesses, who had been examined against him during the trial and that the surety furnished by the petitioner was not capable of controlling the movements of the petitioner. 3] On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the surety would not be able to control the movements of the petitioner and it is also urged before us that the petitioner was likely to commit some offence against the witnesses, who had been examined against him during the trial. 4] The petitioner had furnished the surety and perusal of the order, it does not Crim.WP 1083/10 - 3 - indicate that there are any grounds on the basis of which the respondents could have come to the conclusion that the surety was incapable of controlling the movements of the petitioner. In respect of the ground that the petitioner was likely to threaten the prosecution witnesses, according to us, unless there is some material to indicate that in the past, the petitioner had threatened the prosecution witnesses or that the petitioner had committed any offence against them, only on the ground that they had been examined against him during the trial, the authorities ought not to have rejected the application of the petitioner. 5] In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct that the petitioner be released on furlough on such terms and conditions, which the authorities consider fit and proper by accepting the surety furnished by the petitioner. Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) ndk/cr1612102