1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.432/2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Subhash Bhagwanrao Kale .. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .. RESPONDENT .... Shri V.M.Humbe,Adv.(appointed) for applicants. .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & R.K.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 22/06/2009 ORAL ORDER : A letter sent by the petitioner through jail takes exception to the order passed by the respondent declining to release the petitioner on furlough. Since the letter was addressed to us through jail, we had appointed Advocate Shri Humbe, to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 2 2. It appears that the impugned order came to be passed declining to release the petitioner on furlough on various grounds amongst which prominently is that the petitioner has been threatening witnesses who had deposed against him in trial. It is therefore, reasonably apprehended by the respondents that if the petitioner is released on furlough, the petitioner is likely to cause harm and danger to the witnesses examined in the trial. 3. Mr.Humbe, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.592/05 in which the Division Bench at Paragraph no.5 has observed that merely because of the abscondence of the other accused, furlough could not be denied to the prisoner who was legally entitled to it particularly as the concerned prisoner was in no manner connected with the abscondence of the other co accused. Similarly in respect of pendency of several cases the Division Bench at Paragraph no.5 had observed that since the petitioner therein had been acquitted the same ground could not be used against the petitioner. The Division Bench therefore, concluded by holding that mere apprehension of the complainant that the prisoner if released on furlough would threaten to cause harm to them could not be a ground to release petitioner on furlough in the absence of any material which would lead the authority to that inference. Our attention has also been 3 invited to certain directions/guidelines issued by Inspector General (Prisons) Central region, Aurangabad. 4. It appears from the police report which was adverse to the petitioner that the petitioner had been threatening the witnesses who had been examined during the trial, whose statement was required to be taken under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been in jail nearly for a period of 22 months. In the light of the fact that there is strong material to indicate at this stage prima facie that the petitioner had threatened the witnesses, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition. We however, grant liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh for furlough after period of 6 months which application would be decided by the respondents on its own merits uninfluenced by the order passed in the present writ petition, rejecting the furlough. 5. In the result, therefore, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner, at Rs.1500/- (Rs.One thousand five hundred only). [R.K.DESHPANDE] [P.V.HARDAS] JUDGE JUDGE umg/criwp432-09