1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.506/2008 [Jeevanlal Bansilal Sonpure .vrs. The State of Maharashtra] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. N.A. Badar, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for the respondents/State. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 17 th SEPTEMBER, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By judgment dated 29.11.2006 the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (I) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years. The petitioner had applied for grant of furlough, however, by order dated 15.5.2008 his application was rejected on the ground that the proposed surety Motilal Hiralal Sonpure was not willing to stand as surety to the petitioner. As such the application was 2 rejected under Rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The petitioner has challenged the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the proposed surety is willing to stand as surety for the petitioner. In support of this submission he relied on xerox copy of the affidavit dated 22.5.2008 sworn-in by one Nandkishor Hiralal Sonpure to the effect that the petitioner is his nephew and he is ready to stand as surety for him in case he is released on parole. It is apparent that there is no affidavit filed by Motilal Hiralal Sonpure showing his willingness to stand as surety for the petitioner. Thus, the said affidavit is not helpful to the petitioner. We see no illegality in the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 4. The fees of the counsel appointed for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande