1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 121 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2000 (DECIDED) Satish Shankarrao Shinde ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents ..... Ms. Shilpa Awachar, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM: S.B. DESHMUKH & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 17TH MARCH, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 The petitioner-prisoner, addressed a written communication/letter to this Court. In view of the order passed by this court, the said communication is registered as Criminal writ petition. Ms. Shilpa Awachar is appointed to represent the petitioner. On behalf of the State, affidavit in reply is filed, which is sworn in by Mr. Bharat Mahadeo Bhosale, Additonal Superintendent of Central Prison, Harsool, Aurangabad. Copy of affidavit in reply is served on the counsel for the petitioner. 2 Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is undergoing conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. From the communication addressed by the petitioner-prisoner, 2 to this Court, it appears that the petitioner has been convicted by the competent Court i.e. learned Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1999. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the date of conviction is 18.12.1999. The petitioner has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. On 3.6.2009, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had applied for grant of furlough leave. However, the said application has been rejected by the Special Inspector General of Police (Prisons), Central Zone, Aurangabad. The order passed by the said authority is on record. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for release on furlough leave. In support of her submission, she relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Miyakhan Bhurekhan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2006 Cri. L.J. 2233. She also placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Santosh Bhagwandin Bachharaj Vs. Superintendent, Central Prison, reported in 2004 (1) Bom. C. R. (Cri.) 453. 3 Learned A.P.P. Mr. Godbharle, submitted that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Miyakhan Bhurekhan (supra) was delivered by this Court under Rule 4 of Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules 1959. He points out that the case in hand is governed by Rule 4(6) (10) of Rules 1959. According to him, the present petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Special 3 Inspector General of Police (Prisons). There is no challenge to the Rules in question. According to him, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case. The petitioner is not eligible for furlough leave. He supports the order passed by the Special Inspector General of Police (Prisons). 4 From the order impugned, it appears that furlough leave has been denied by the Special Inspector General of Police (Prisons) on the ground of overstaying of the petitioner for around 802 days, unauthorizedly. Affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State is on record. In para 4 of the said affidavit, a statement is made that earlier the petitioner-convict was released on parole for 30 days. The petitioner convict however, did not surrender before the jail authorities within time. He was required to be arrested and brought to the prison by the police authorities. In view of the provisions laid down under Rule 4(6) and (10) of the Rules, 1959, his application has been rejected. 5 We have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. We have considered both the judgments relied upon on behalf of the petitioner. The judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the case of Miyakhan Bhurekhan (supra) appears to be in relation to rule 4(4), when this Court on the background of the 4 case has held that release on furlough is substantial and legal right of the prisoner. The court was of the opinion that in that case, there was no material to show that in case of release of convict on furlough he would disturb to the public peace and tranquility. Learned Single Judge has considered Rule 11(1) of the Rules 1959. 6 In our view, the case on hand is that the petitioner did over stay for about 802 days, which was inadmissible and unauthorized overstay. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not return to the prison. He was arrested and brought to the prison by the police authorities. The conduct of the petitioner, in view of Rule 4(6) and Rule 4(10), disentitles him for such furlough leave. We do not find any perversity in the order passed by the Special Inspector General of Police (Prison). This petition is devoid of any substance and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7 Ms Shilpa Awarchar, advocate was appointed by this Court to represent the case of the petitioner in the present petition. We direct the Registry to pay an amount quantified at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to Ms. Shilpa Awachar, advocate, towards her professional fees. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/ 5