1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR 1. Criminal Writ Petition No. 634/2010 (Bhupendra Deorao Bhalavi vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.) 2. Criminal W.P.No. 714/2010 (Bhupendra Deorao Bhalavi vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya Mumbai and another) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. T.A.Mirza, APP for the respondents. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & P.B.VARALE, JJ DATE : 8.3.2011 The grievance of the petitioner in both the petitions is the same, hence, they are being dealt with together. 2. The petitioner had preferred an application for furlough which was granted on 14.5.2007. By way of security his surety Jagruti Warkade had furnished National Saving Certificate in the sum of Rs. 1000/- to the Tahsil Office, Tumsar on 26.3.2007 and he was released on furlough on 14.5.2007. The petitioner preferred a fresh application for furlough on 3.8.2008. According to the petitioner, he was granted furlough 2` and on grant of furlough, he was asked to furnish fresh security of Rs. 1000/-. The further case of the petitioner is that his surety Jagruti Warkade went to Tahsil Office and informed the Tahsil Office that the earlier National Saving Certificate of Rs. 1000/- furnished by her, was still lying in the Tahsil Office, hence it was not necessary to furnish fresh solvency or cash security as earlier National Saving Certificate was still lying with the Tahsil Office, Tumsar. The surety of the petitioner was informed that the National Saving Certificate was not in the Tahsil Office as it had been returned to her. This according to the petitioner was a false statement by the Tahsildar, hence, he has prayed that action be taken against him and the petitioner should be suitably compensated as in the year 2008 he could not avail of furlough on account of false statement by the then Tahsildar. 3. In view of the above, this Court in W.P.No. 634/10 directed that inquiry be conducted by the Collector, Bhandara in this matter. Thereafter, the Collector conducted inquiry in the said matter and it was found that the statement that National Saving Certificate was returned by the Tahsil Office was incorrect. On going through the affidavit filed by the Collector, Bhandara we are satisfied with the steps taken in this matter. 4. However, as far as prayer for compensation is 3` concerned, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of compensation. We say so because on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner was arrested on 15.6.2003. As per Rule 3(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959 a prisoner who is undergoing life imprisonment may be released on furlough every two years. As per this Rule, a life convict may be released on furlough every year only after he completes 7 years of actual imprisonment. As the petitioner was arrested on 15.6.2003, in the year 2008 he had completed about 5 years of actual imprisonment, in such case he cannot be released on furlough every year but can be released only once in two years. Admittedly, the petitioner was released on furlough on 14.5.2007, in such case he could not be released again on furlough in the year 2008. The jail record shows that on account of this, his application for furlough was not processed any further and it was filed. It appears that his surety, in anticipation of furlough being granted, had approached the Office of Tahsildar and she was told that the said document had been returned to her which was an incorrect statement. On account of this incorrect statement the surety and the petitioner got agitated. Thus, as in the year 2008, the petitioner was not entitled to be granted furlough, there is no question of granting any compensation. It is noticed that as the petitioner was earlier released on furlough in 2007, he 4` became eligible for grant of furlough in 2009. Accordingly, he preferred an application for furlough on 6.8.2009. By order dated 29.9.2009, the application for furlough came to b e granted and thereafter the petitioner was released on furlough after complying with necessary formalities. 5. The original National Saving Certificate is still lying with original record in the Tahsil Office, Tumsar. In view of the above, it is directed that the National Saving Certificate be returned to the surety Smt. Jagruti Dharamdas Warkade. 6. The petitions are disposed of with the above directions. 7. The office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Central Prison, Nagpur. JUDGE JUDGE patle 5`