1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINALWRIT PETITION NO.365/2009 Shri Raghunath Haribhau Sanap .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra .. RESPONDENT .... Shri H.P.Jadhav(Applinted),Adv.for petitioner. Shri N.N.Jadhav,APP for Respondent. .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & R.K.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 30/06/2009 ORAL ORDER : This petition which was received through jail was registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly we have appointed Advocate Shri H.P.Jadhav to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. This petition takes exception to an order passed by the respondents dated 27/2/2009 rejecting application of the petitioner seeking his release on furlough. 2. It appears that the petitioner had previously absconded for 857 2 days and was required to be arrested and thereafter lodged in jail on his being released on furlough. On the second occasion also, the petitioner returned late to jail by 33 days. On this ground and also on the ground that no surety was available, application of the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. Shri Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Pandurang Gomaji Wakode V/s State of Maharashtra and others 2004(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri)385 to urge before us that the aforesaid ground i.e. of late of late surrender is not available for rejection of the application on furlough. The learned APP has supported the order impugned in the present petition. 4. Rule 4(10) of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules 1959 clearly mandates that the prisoners who had at any time escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough would not be considered for release on parole or furlough. In the present case, the petitioner was required to be arrested and thereafter lodged in jail after a period of 857 days. On the second occasion also, petitioner surrendered late by 33 days. In the light of the aforesaid facts therefore, according to us, impugned order cannot be faulted with. There is no merit in the petition and the same 3 is therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. We however, grant liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh after a period of six months and in the event petitioner submits his application, the respondents shall decide the same in accordance with law uninfluenced by the rejection of his earlier applications. 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/criwp365-09