vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.452 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.452 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.452 OF 2009 Bashir Ahmed Usman Gani Khairulla ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.M.Z. Ansari for Petitioner Mr.A.S. Pai, APP, for Respondent-State CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & BILAL NAZKI & BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. A.R. JOSHI, JJ. A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: MARCH 6, 2009 MARCH 6, 2009 MARCH 6, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has been denied leave on furlough on the ground that earlier when he was granted furlough, he overstayed. The learned Counsel has pointed out that when he was granted furlough for 14 days, he applied for extension and he was communicated on phone that extension has been granted. Since he had applied for an extension of 14 days, he thought that extension has been granted for 14 days. Therefore, after the end of 14 days, he surrendered before the jail authorities when he was informed that in fact the furlough had been extended only for seven days. But he was always under the impression that furlough had been extended for 14 days and it can be borne out by the fact that during this period of seven days also, he remained reporting to the police as was directed by the order. Thereupon he made : 2 : a representation to the jail authorities and the jail authorities have already condoned this and regularised the overstay of seven days by considering it to be a leave of furlough. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this was not a ground available to the respondents to reject his furlough since he had explained that his overstaying was not intentional and that had been also accepted by the jail authorities and the overstay had been condoned. Therefore, the present order was not passed after due application of mind. 2. We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the period had been regularised and explanation offered by the petitioner had been accepted on this ground, the application for furlough should not have been rejected. 3. Therefore, the order is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. The petitioner be released on furlough for a period of 14 days on the same terms and conditions on which the furlough was granted on earlier occasions. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) : 3 : (A.R. JOSHI, J.)