1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.792 OF 2010 Shersingh Nanaksingh Gill, Age-35 years, Occu-Convict No.7983 R/o.Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik, Permanent R/o.Nagin Ghat, Nanded, Dist. Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2. The Deputy Inspector of 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 Mr.M.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.B.V.Wagh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 21/09/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made sreturnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the respondents declining to release the petitioner on furlough on the ground - (1) that if released, the petitioner is likely to threaten the witnesses who had been examined against him in the trial and (2) his mother was incapable of controlling the behaviour and the movements of the petitioner, if released on furlough. 3. We had issued notice to the respondents and asked the learned A.P.P. to obtain instructions in respect of the behaviour of the petitioner in jail. The learned A.P.P. states on the basis of written instructions that the behaviour of the petitioner is satisfactory. 4. The respondents have not placed before us any material to indicate that the petitioner had, at any point of time, either as an under trial prisoner or during the trial, threatened any of the prosecution witnesses. Since there is no material to that effect, according to us, the respondents could not have reached to a conclusion that the petitioner would threaten the witnesses who had been examined during the trial. Similarly, there is nothing to indicate that the mother of the petitioner is incapable of controlling 3 either the behaviour or the movements of the petitioner, if released on furlough. Since the behaviour of the petitioner in jail has been satisfactory, and there is nothing to indicate that his behaviour during the trial was abnormal, according to us, the petitioner would be entitled to be released on furlough. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough for such period and on such terms and conditions which the respondents considered fit and appropriate. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEPT. 2010/cri.w.p.792-10