1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1055 OF 2009 Shri. Kashinath Punjaram Lahane, R/o. Central Jail, Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Smt. Manjusha Jagtap, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner. Shri. V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for respondent. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 14th December, 2009 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. A letter sent by the petitioner came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and we have accordingly appointed Advocate Smt. Manjusha Jagtap as a counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this petition is in respect of issuance of necessary writ to the respondent to direct the Tahsildar, Ghansavangi to issue the necessary surety. 2 4. It appears that the application of the petitioner seeking his release on furlough came to be allowed by the respondent and the respondent had directed the petitioner to submit the surety. According to the petitioner, his wife had repeatedly gone to the office of Tahsildar, Ghansavangi, who had directed her to produce Rs. 10,000/- in cash and two witnesses. Despite the wife of the petitioner completing the necessary formalities, the Tahsildar, Ghansavangi had not issued the surety certificate. As a result of non issuance of surety certificate, the petitioner could not secure his release, though the application filed by the petitioner had been allowed. 5. Out attention has been invited to Rule 3 in Chapter 37 of the Prisons Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules 1959 which specifies that the order of parole or furlough would be effective only for a period of two months from the date of its issuance and no effect can be given to such order after a period of two months has expired. The learned A.P.P. states that period of two months has been further be extended up to four months by virtue of a Government circular. 6. In the light of aforesaid rule, we partly allow this petition and grant liberty to the petitioner to submit an application afresh seeking his release on furlough on the same ground on which the petitioner sought his release earlier. If the petitioner submits an application, the respondent is directed to decide it as expeditiously as possible in 3 accordance with law keeping in view of the fact that the earlier application of the petitioner had been allowed. We also direct the Tahsildar, Ghansavangi to issue necessary surety certificate to the relatives of the petitioner on their completing necessary formalities. The Tahsildar, Ghansavangi to ensure that no time is unnecessarily wasted which would render the order of release ineffective. 7. Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to Advocate Mrs. Manjusha Jagtap at Rs. 2,000/-. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.] ssc/criwp1055.09