( 1 ) 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 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.783 OF 2009 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.783 OF 2009 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.783 OF 2009 Nasim Ashraf Shaikh Ali Barmare .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents Mrs.Farhana Shah for the Petitioner. Smt.U.V.Kejriwal, APP for the State. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. R.G.KETKAR, JJ. R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 8TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 8TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 8TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner has made an application for extension of furlough leave. The petitioner has been convicted in Bomb Blast Special Case No.1 of 1993 on 17.7.2007 by the Designated Court for TADA. By an order dated 3.2.2009, this Court had released the petitioner on furlough from 9.3.2009 to 3.4.2009. As per this order the petitioner was to surrender on 3.4.2009, however, since the petitioner’s mother was ill he made an application on 25.3.2009 for extension of furlough. 2. It may be stated here that by the order dated 3.2.2009 this Court directed the respondents to release the petitioner on furlough initially for a period of 14 days and thereafter to consider his extension for a further period, subject to his conduct in the leave period. It appears that in view of this observation the ( 2 ) petitioner’s furlough was extended for 7 days on 3.4.2009. That period is to expire tomorrow on 9.4.3009. Therefore the Petitioner has made this application for further extension. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. She submitted that the petitioner’s mother is ill. She is suffering from chronic renal disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, hypertension and mild cardiomegaly. She therefore submitted the petitioner’s furlough leave may be extended by one week. 4. One extension has already been granted to the petitioner. It is not the petitioner’s case that his mother needs urgent operation. We are unable to grant further extension. The petitioner is therefore directed to surrender. 5. At this stage, we may note here that admittedly this Court had directed the petitioner to report to the Mahim Police Station every day, however, the petitioner has reported to the Nirmal Nagar Police Station. The petitioner is expected to comply with the order of the High Court strictly and not construe it according to his convenience. 6. However the petitioner may make an appropriate application in accordance with law for his release on ( 3 ) parole in case his mother requires operation or some urgent treatment. If such an application for parole is made, the concerned Authorities may consider the same independently, in accordance with law and at the earliest. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on this aspect of the matter. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of. (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)