1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2009 Sanjay Yeshwant Patil .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Shri Walmik Jadhav, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Shri N.N.Jadhav, APP for respondent-State CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23rd JUNE 2009 PER COURT : 1. A letter sent by the petitioner through jail taking exception to the order passed by the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner for his release on furlough came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. We accordingly appointed appointed Advocate Shri Jadhav to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 2. The principal ground on which the application of the petitioner for his release on furlough came to be rejected is that the petitioner, on previous seven occasions had surrendered late by 180 days, 115 days, 15 days, 13 days, 22 days, 19 days and 46 days. On one occasion, the petitioner was required to be arrested and lodged in jail. By virtue of Rule 2 4 (10) of the Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole Leave) Rules, 1959, the petitioner was disentitled to be considered for his release on furlough. 3. However, we find that despite the fact that the petitioner had surrendered late on previous occasions, respondents authorities had turned a Nelson’s eye towards this oppression of the petitioner and had granted either parole or furlough. We, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the present petition and direct his release on furlough but we grant liberty to the petitioner of submitting an application afresh after a period of six months from today. The apprehension of the respondents that in the event the petitioner is released on furlough, the petitioner would not report back to the jail authorities appears to be well founded. By his own behaviour the petitioner has not allayed the apprehension expressed by the respondents. However, that would not disentitle the petitioner to be refused parole or furlough leave in future indefinitely. 4. In the light of that, therefore, we dismiss the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application afresh after period of six months from today 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/- (Rs. One thousand five hundred). ( R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/459.09criwp) 3