1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3034 OF 2009 Kamal Mayaram Kanojiya .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondents Shri Arfan Sait for the Petitioner. Shri Rajesh More, APP, for the State. CORAM: J.N. PATEL & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: DECEMBER 08, 2009 P.C: Heard. A letter written by the petitioner/prisoner is treated as writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he is convicted for having committed offence under Section 302 of the IPC by the Court of Sessions, Sewree, Mumbai vide the judgment and order dated 25-11-2000. 2. The petitioner has filed an application dated 3-2-2009 for grant of furlough leave but the authorities have failed to take any decision and, therefore, this Court 2 should direct the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough. In response to the notice, affidavit of Shri Chandramani Arjun Indurkar, Jailor Group-I, Nasik Road Central Prison has been filed wherein it has been stated that as there is no police report received from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, the respondents are not in a position to decide the petitioner's application for furlough. 3. The learned APP submitted that in spite of repeated reminders and messages sent to the Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, no report has been received. 4. In so far as the respondents are concerned, there is no material on record to show that the case of the petitioner is not fit for being considered to be released on furlough. In case no report is received from the Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, the sanctioning authority cannot keep the application for furlough of the petitioner pending and he has to take a decision on the basis of the record and the information available with him. The very fact that the Superintendent of Police, Lucknow has failed to 3 respond in the matter, itself goes to show that there is no evidence against the petitioner, otherwise there is no reason why the Superintendent of Police, Lucknow should have not responded to the repeated reminders and messages of the prison authorities. We, therefore, direct the respondent-State through the sanctioning authority to proceed to take decision on the application of the petitioner for furlough leave within a week from today and communicate the order to the petitioner. 5. The learned APP is directed to communicate this order directly to the sanctioning authority, for compliance. 6. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)