1603cwp727.10.odt 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 727 of 2010. Rajesh Deena Sahare ..vs.. The Superintendent, central Prison, Nagpur and anr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms.Nisha Gajbhiye, Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs.S.S.Wandile, APP for the respondents. CORAM : V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND PRASANNA B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : 16TH MARCH, 2011. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner – original accused and the learned APP for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had preferred an application for furlough which came to be rejected by order dated 19/7/2010 on account of adverse police report dated 25/6/2010. Hence, the petitioner has prayed that the communication dated 25/6/2010, whereby adverse police report was sent to the concerned authority by the police and the order dated 19/7/2010, whereby the application of the petitioner for furlough came to be rejected, be quashed and set aside. 3. The ground for rejecting the application for furlough is 1603cwp727.10.odt 2/5 that earlier the petitioner was released on parole leave on 27/9/2008 for 30 days. The said period was then extended by another 60 days, as such he was granted parole for the period of 90 days. Thus, after expiry of 90 days, he was to report back, however, he did not report back to the prison in time. Prior to that also on two occasions, when the petitioner was released on furlough, he had overstayed. It is noticed that during the period of overstay on parole the applicant was involved in C.R.No.9 of 2009 which relates to a case under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is on these two grounds i.e. on the ground of overstay and on the ground that during the period he was released on parole, the petitioner committed another offence, the application for furlough came to be rejected. 4. To support her contention that furlough cannot be denied on the ground of adverse police report, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Sadashiv Gangaram Parate ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and anr. Reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3442. In the said decision, the prisoner had applied for the first time for furlough. The said application came to be rejected on the ground of adverse police report that in case the petitioner is released from jail, the life of the witnesses would be endangered so also there would be danger to public peace and tranquility. On going through the record 1603cwp727.10.odt 3/5 in the said case, this court found that there was nothing on record to show that there was any danger if he was released. Hence, it was observed that the fear expressed in the order seems to be based on conjecture and surmises and the impugned order came to be quashed and set aside. 5. As far as the present case is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had overstayed on the occasion when he was granted parole. It has also come on record that during the period he was on parole he got involved in C.R.No.9 of 2009. The nature of the offence shows that, in fact, there is danger to public peace and tranquility if the petitioner is released on furlough. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the report is based on the conjectures and surmises. Thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in C.R.No.9 of 2009. It is noticed that the investigation in the said case is not complete qua the petitioner as he is in custody. However, except for this bald statement, we find this submission is not substantiated in any manner, hence we find no merit in this submission. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the furlough has to be granted to the petitioner as it is his right and he cannot be deprived of his right. It is seen that the petitioner has abused his right by overstaying and indulging in another offence 1603cwp727.10.odt 4/5 when he was released earlier. A person cannot go on abusing the liberty granted to him and then claim that he has a right hence, he has to be released. The Division of this court in the case of Ramchandra Raghu Naik ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1919 while dealing with a petition where grievance was raised that the prayer of furlough was rejected, wherein also the convict had claimed that he ought to be granted furlough as of right, observed that an overstay without any justification and without any reason can hardly be condoned and, therefore, no unwarranted leniency can be shown to such a person while applying furlough rules. The Division Bench further referred to Rule 4(10) of the Furlough Rules and observed that in cases where a prisoner continues to commit default in the matter of surrender on expiry of the furlough leave, once having availed the same, Rule 4(10) provides that prisoners who had at any time escaped or attempted to escape from the lawful custody or defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough, shall not be released on furlough. Thus, the provision regarding the entitlement of benefit of furlough have to be read along with the condition attached to the same. 7. In the present case, the conduct of the petitioner is such that he is disentitled to the grant of relief. We do not find any error in the order passed by the authority. In the result, the petition fails 1603cwp727.10.odt 5/5 and is hereby dismissed. Needless to say that even if the present application for furlough has been rejected, the petitioner may, if he so desires, make a fresh application for furlough. Obviously, in case any such application is filed, the same will have to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Law. JUDGE JUDGE chute