drp {1} Cri.W.P.No.1193/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1193 OF 2010 Abdul Siraj Bashid Kazi PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.B.Madde, Advocate for the petitioner (Appointed) Mr.D.V.Tele, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 17th February 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1169/2009, which came to be allowed by the Division Bench of this Court, by directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law. In the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order issued the respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for his release on furlough, on the drp {2} Cri.W.P.No.1193/2010 grounds – (1) that the apprehension of the complainant that if the accused is released on furlough, he would cause alarm harm and danger to the complainant and other witnesses and (2) the surety offered by the petitioner was not available for questioning. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondent, the respondent has filed affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply the aforesaid two grounds are reiterated. 4. We have heard Mr.S.B.Madde, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for respondent State. The petitioner has already undergone 7 years of imprisonment and though he had become entitle to apply for parole / furlough, the petitioner, it appears, had not applied so far. This is the first application submitted by the petitioner, after his conviction 7 years ago that the petitioner be released on furlough. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner, if released on furlough, was likely to cause alarm harm and danger to the complainant and other witnesses, appears to us, completely mis-founded. There is absolutely no objective material in support of the subjective satisfaction of the respondent. Mere ipse-dixit of the respondent cannot blindly be accepted. The petitioner further states that the surety offered by the petitioner had gone on pilgrimage and, therefore, was not available at that time for questioning, but now the surety is available. In those circumstances, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition. drp {3} Cri.W.P.No.1193/2010 5. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner, afresh. Since the surety is now available for questioning, respondent authorities may question the surety, if they so desire. Respondents to decide the application of the petitioner, within 4 weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Fees, payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner, quantified at Rs.1,500/- [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/cwp1193-10