1 crwp2544-10 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2544 OF 2010 Amroj Momin Khan ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents. Mr.Rahul Arote for the petitioner. Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. CORAM : A.M. Khanwilkar, & U.D. Salvi, JJ. DATE : 8th September 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant record. 2. The petitioner takes exception to the decision of the appropriate authority in rejecting the furlough leave application submitted by the petitioner. Two-fold reasons are stated; Firstly that the relative of the petitioner who is willing to stand surety for the petitioner and would be receiving the petitioner while on furlough leave may not be able to control the activities of the petitioner. The second reason is that there is possibility that if the petitioner is released on furlough leave may terrorise and commit crimes during the relevant period. 2 crwp2544-10 3. Taking the first ground, we fail to understand as to on what basis the inference has been deduced by the appropriate authority. It would be a different matter if the surety offered by the petitioner was not to be a solvent surety. Once it is found that the surety is a solvent surety and the surety is willing to submit surety bond as prescribed by the Rules, the reason stated is only in the form of apprehension. Assuming that such apprehension is entertained, some tangible material or circumstances should be adverted to on the basis of which the same has been formed by the appropriate authority. Hence, it is a case of mere opposition to release the prisoner. For the same reason, even the second reason weighed with the appropriate authority in rejecting the furlough leave application does not commend to us. A Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Sanjay Kisan Khadse V/s. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2004 (1) Mah.L.J. 789 has held that the police authorities should be in a position to substantiate the opinion formed by giving reasons for rejecting the furlough leave application. Mere opposition to release the prisoner by the authority on the ground of likelihood of harm to the witnesses simplicitor would not be sufficient to deny the furlough leave to the prisoner. The said exposition applies to the case on hand on all fours. The learned APP is not in a position to point out any other document contained in the original file of the instructing officer which would provide some insight into the reasons stated by the authority for rejecting the furlough leave application. 3 crwp2544-10 4. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we set aside the impugned decision of the appropriate authority and direct the appropriate authority to reconsider the request of the petitioner for being released on furlough leave in accordance with law. That be done within eight weeks from today. 5. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (U.D. Salvi, J.) (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.)