1 CRWP NO.348/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.348 OF 2011 Date of decision:20/8/2011 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.H.JOSHI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/No. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G.Paralikar), Private Secretary agp/348-11crwp 2 CRWP NO.348/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.348 OF 2011 Kuwarsingh s/o Kishansingh Bainade, Age 48 years, Occu: Nil, r/o. At Present Central Jail, Harsul at Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Inspector General, of Central Jail, Harsul at Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 3. The Deputy Inspector General, Harsul Jail, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Smt. S.P.Chate, Adv., for the petitioner. Smt.S.D.Shelke, APP for respondents. ... CORAM: A.H.JOSHI AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATE:AUGUST 20th, 2011 ... 3 CRWP NO.348/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.H.Joshi, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith, and with the consent of respective Advocates. 2. Petitioner's request for furlough leave is rejected by order dated 21st March, 2011. 3. The reason leading to rejection is late reporting while availing leave granted to the petitioner in recent past i.e. in January, 2010. Petitioner had reported late by 181 days. 4. Petitioner is relying upon medical certificates issued by the hospital - Sumananjali Nursing Home - certifying sickness of petitioner's wife on account of "dys-functional uterine bleeding, and recommended surgical treatment". 5. The certificates relied upon by the petitioner refer to January, 2010, May, 2010 and August, 2011. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was at large, unauthorizedly, when former two certificates, subject matter, were issued by the hospital 4 CRWP NO.348/2011 concerned. Petitioner could have treated his wife during the said period. The petition does not explain any circumstances in which petitioner has failed to render any assistance to his wife. 7. We are satisfied that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for any interference in the order passed by the competent authority. 8. We, therefore, dismiss the petition. Rule discharged. (A.R.JOSHI) (A.H.JOSHI) JUDGE JUDGE ... (agp:348-11crwp)