1 Criminal Writ Petition No.848 of 2010 with Criminal Writ Petition No.954 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.848 OF 2010 Dipak S/o.Sudhakar Wakalekar, Age-Major, Occu-Nil, Original R/o. At : Ramwadi (Mali Chal) Panchvati, Nashik Presently in Open Jail Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Asst. Police Commissioner (Cr.Branch) Nasik. 3. D.I.G. Prison, Aurangabad, 4. Superintendent, Open Jail, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.954 OF 2010 Shivaji S/o.Bali Pawar, Age-45 years, Occu-Nil, R/o.At Present : Open Jail Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.848 of 2010 with Criminal Writ Petition No.954 of 2010 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent, Open Jail at Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 3. The Inspector General of Prisons Prisons Central Jail Harsul at Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mr.R.D.Sanap, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cri.W.P.848 of 2010. (Appointed) Ms.Sharda P.Chate, learned counsel for petitioner in Cri.W.P.954 of 2010 Mr.V.D.Godbharle, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 06/06/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Since the question involved in both these petitions is similar and since the question now stands answered in favour of the petitioners by virtue of the Full Bench judgment of this Court referred in these 2 petitions on 04/05/2011, both these petitions are being decided finally at this stage, by this common judgment. 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.848 of 2010 with Criminal Writ Petition No.954 of 2010 3. The question which was referred to the Full Bench by us was, “Whether as per proviso to Rule 6 of The Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, a convict confined in open prison, can be released on parole/furlough by the Authorities by dispensing with the requirement of execution of bond by the relatives ?” The Full Bench, after considering the various provisions, ultimately at para no.23 of the judgment, adverted to above, concluded by holding that the convict confined in open prison can be released on parole/furlough by the authorities by dispensing with the requirement of execution of bond by the relatives. Un-disputedly, the applications filed by the present petitioners, seeking their release on furlough, came to be allowed by imposing a condition that the applicants should furnish the bond of their relatives. The aforesaid condition therefore is unsustainable in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench adverted to above. 4. Resultantly, we allow these petitions and quashed and set aside the impugned order to the extent of the condition imposed on the petitioners by the authorities of furnishing a bond of the relatives of the petitioners. The authorities, therefore, shall pass the necessary orders and shall not now insist on a bond being executed by the relatives of the petitioners. The petitioners therefore be released on furlough/parole on the strength of the personal bond submitted by them as the petitioners are confined in open prison. 4 Criminal Writ Petition No.848 of 2010 with Criminal Writ Petition No.954 of 2010 5. Rule is therefore made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. 6. Fees payable to the learned counsel Shri.Sanap, appointed on behalf of the petitioner in Cri.Writ Petition No.848/2010, is quantified at Rs.3,000/-. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JUNE 2011/cri.w.p.848-10