1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2061 OF 2010 Anil Ramchandra Parab Petitioner versus DIG (Aurangabad Division) & another Respondents Mr.Jagdish Shetty for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for the State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE : 06th September 2010 PC : 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the decision of Special Inspector General of Police and Deputy Inspector General (Prisons), Central Prison, Aurangabad dated 19th June 2010 is subject matter of challenge. By the said decision the petitioner’s request for being released on furlough leave has been rejected. The sole ground stated is that the witnesses in respect of the criminal case in which the petitioner has been convicted apprehend that if the petitioner was to be released, they would be threatened and there is danger to their life. It is also stated that the petitioner has links with Daud gang. 2. Insofar as the apprehension expressed by the witnesses is concerned, we fail to understand as to how that can be germane to consider the furlough leave application of the petitioner. We say so because the petitioner is presently lodged in Nashik Central Prison and 2 after being released on furlough leave he intends to visit his native place at Devgad where his brother Arvind Parab is willing to receive him and stand as surety. In such a situation, the authority could have imposed stringent condition on the petitioner including not to enter Mumbai District area where the witnesses are residing. 3. Insofar as the apprehension expressed by the learned APP that if the petitioner is released on furlough leave there is all possibility that the petitioner may abscond is concerned, that submission is made on the basis of past experience of the prosecution that although the offence was registered in the year 1984 the petitioner eventually came to be arrested in the year 2004 and for all these almost 20 years the petitioner was absconding. However, that is not the ground stated in the impugned decision. 4. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned decision and restore the application of the petitioner for being released on furlough leave to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law taking in to account all aspects of the matter. All questions are left open. The petition is disposed off with a direction to the appropriate authority to consider the furlough leave application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event not latter than 4th October 2010. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)