1 Criminal W.P.No.955 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 955 OF 2010 Sardar Shahawali Khan ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Ms Vidya S. Narale (Raut), Advocate for the petitioner; Mr N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 1st December, 2010 PER COURT : By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order dated 31.8.2010 passed by the Special D.I.G. (Prisons), Aurangabad declining to entertain an application submitted by the petitioner for his release on furlough. 2. It appears that the petitioner, who is a convict undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life under section 3 (3) of the TADA Act and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, had applied for his release on furlough in 2010 and accordingly came to be granted leave from 26.7.210 till 2 Criminal W.P.No.955 of 2010 9.8.2010 for a period of 14 days. An application submitted by the petitioner seeking extension of the furlough leave also came to be favourably decided by the respondents and accordingly furlough came to be extended from 10.8.2010 till 23.10.2010, i.e. for a period of 14 days. The petitioner had sought for his release on furlough, which as pointed out by us, the respondent declined to entertain. 3. It is undisputed that rule (2)A of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Prison) Rules, 1959 provides that a prisoner who is sentenced for imprisonment for life be released on furlough every year instead of two years after he completes period of seven years of actual imprisonment. The petitioner came to be convicted by order dated 6.6.2007 and since the petitioner was entitled only to furlough once a year, the petitioner was not entitled to seek his release again in the year 2010. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us no fault can be found with the order of the respondents declining to entertain the application of the petitioner. The petitioner may, however, apply as and when the petitioner is entitled to be released on furlough. 3 Criminal W.P.No.955 of 2010 4. For the reasons stated above, according to us, there is no merit in the present petition and the present writ petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp955.10