1 Criminal W.P.No. 1106 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1106 OF 2010 Sukhdeo Bhagwan Gaikwad, Age yrs. Occu. Nil, Central jail, Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent, Central jail, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Miss Priyal D. Savant, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 12th January, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 Criminal W.P.No. 1106 of 2010 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who had addressed a communication to this Court and which came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition, challenges the order passed by the respondents, dated 20.9.2010 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for his release on furlough. 3. The petitioner, it appears, stands convicted for an offence punishable under section 376 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code and appears to have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and five years, respectively. The petitioner, who was not on bail during trial, applied to the authorities for his release on furlough, on being entitled to be released on furlough. A police report in this behalf was called for and the police report indicated that the authorities nurtured an apprehension that in the event the petitioner was released on furlough, the petitioner was likely to threaten the prosecutrix as well as the other witnesses who had been examined in the trial. On the basis of the said fact, the Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad rejected the application of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is otherwise eligible to be released on furlough. The petitioner during the trial had not threatened either the prosecutrix or the witnesses. No report in this behalf if forthcoming from the respondents. There is no basis for the apprehension of the respondents that in the 3 Criminal W.P.No. 1106 of 2010 event the petitioner is released on furlough, he was likely to threaten the prosecutrix and the other witnesses. However, the apprehension of the respondents can be allayed by putting the petitioner to certain terms. According to us, this could not have been made a ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner, particularly in the absence of adequate material to that effect. We, therefore, are of the view that the petitioner ought to have been released on furlough. In order to allay the apprehension of the respondents, the respondents while releasing the petitioner on furlough may impose such conditions as are considered fit and appropriate by the respondents including a condition, directing the petitioner to report to the local police station, within whose jurisdiction he proposes to reside, every day and may also impose a condition that the petitioner, during his period of furlough, shall not leave the jurisdiction of the local police station, in whose jurisdiction he proposes to reside. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and make Rule absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/-. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp1106.10