1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.858 OF 2010 Abdul Nazir Basid Kazi PETITIONER VERSUS54 The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mrs.S.N.Hadi, learned counsel for the petitioner. (Appointed) Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 27/10/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail has been registered as Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Adv.Mrs.S.N.Hadi, learned counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition. 3. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though an order directing his release on furlough has been passed, 2 yet the petitioner is unable to comply with the said order on account of the respondents insisting the petitioner to submit two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each and execute the PR bond of Rs.25,000/-. The aforesaid order, releasing the petitioner on furlough came to be passed on 17/03/2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that by demanding two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, the respondents have virtually put it to an order, which is granted to release the petitioner on furlough. It is stated that merely because the father and the brother of the petitioner, who are co-accused with the petitioner in the trial, had absconded, is no ground to insist the petitioner to submit two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each. 5. On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, same stand is re-iterated i.e. on account of absconding of brother and father of the petitioner, two sureties of Rs.25,000/- are demanded from the petitioner. According to us, such a condition is extremely harsh and would amount to deny the order which is passed directing the release of the petitioner on furlough. The Learned A.P.P. states on instructions that normally surety of Rs.15,000/- is demanded for release of a convict on furlough. According to us, the surety for the same amount ought to have been demanded from the petitioner. The learned A.P.P. further states that the said order was operative for a period of 4 months from the date of its passing and the aforesaid 3 order as on today is lapsed. According to us, since a communication had been sent by the petitioner through jail on 12/04/2010, the aforesaid condition about the lapsing of the order could not apply. 6. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order to the limited extent of calling upon the petitioner to furnish sureties of Rs.25,000/- each and instead direct that the petitioner be released on furlough, on the petitioner furnishing a surety of Rs.15,000/- and also executing a PR bond of Rs.15,000/- All other conditions remain un-altered. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/-. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT. 2010/cri.w.p.858-10