1 wp2508.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2508 OF 2010 Lamuel David Shephered. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ....Respondent. Mrs. Indrayani M. Koparkar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ DATED:- SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 P.C. 1. This Petition challenges the order dated 4th June, 2010 passed by the DIG Prisons, Western Division, Pune-6, whereby the application for extension of furlough period preferred by the Petitioner came to be rejected. 2. Briefly stated that the Petitioner was released on furlough on 16th April, 2010. Immediately on the next date, he applied for extension of furlough period on the ground that his mother is unwell and needs medical assistance. That application however, was eventually considered and finally rejected on 4th June, 2 wp2508.10 2010. Taking advantage of the pendency of his extension application, the petitioner overstayed the furlough period. The Petitioner asserts that the Petitioner has not committed any serious breach, in as much as the Petitioner was under bonafide impression that the application preferred by the Petitioner on 17th April, 2010 for extension of furlough period was still pending consideration of the Authority. In any case, the Petitioner surrendered on 15th May, 2010 with in two weeks, which he had prayed in terms of his application dated 17th April, 2010. Sent 3. Ordinarily, the Petitioner's furlough period would have expired on 30th April, 2010, but he surrendered on 15th May, 2010. The fact that the Petitioner overstayed beyond furlough period is not in dispute. The Petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that his application for extension of furlough leave period remained undecided till 4th June, 2010, to justify his overstay. It is common knowledge that the Authorities have to follow certain procedure before taking any final decision on such application for extension of furlough period. That enquiry is made at different levels. In other words, the decision on the Petitioner's application was delayed on account of enquiry made by the Authorities regarding the ground stated in the application. The enquiry was 3 wp2508.10 made by P.I. Chinchwad Police Station, who submitted report on 22nd April, 2010, which was duly processed at different level and final decision was taken on 4th June, 2010. The said report clearly indicates that the health condition of Petitioner's mother was not so serious. She was merely suffering from high Blood Pressure. Besides, there were other family members who could look after the Petitioner's mother. The report concludes that the reason stated by the Petitioner is not appropriate. It is on the basis of the said report, the appropriate Authority decided the Petitioner's application dated 17th April, 2010 and found that the reasons stated in the application for extension of furlough period is not proper. The view so taken by the Authority is on the basis of subjective satisfaction after the enquiry made at different levels. No interference with the said decision is warranted. 4. Hence rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)