-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRI. APPELLATE JURISDICTION W.P.NO.535 OF 2008 Appasaheb Limbaji Lokhande ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.N.N.Gavankar i/b Arfan Sait Advocate for Petitioner Ms.Usha Kejriwal APP for Respondent-State ... CORAM: S.B.MHASE & CORAM: S.B.MHASE & CORAM: S.B.MHASE & SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : MARCH 24, 2008 DATE : MARCH 24, 2008 DATE : MARCH 24, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioner had preferred an application for furlough. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 8th November, 2007 on the ground that Gorakh Lokhande who was the co-accused of the present Petitioner, absconded after he was released on furlough. It is an admitted fact that when the Petitioner was released on furlough in the year 2006, the Petitioner returned back in time. Looking -2- to the fact that when the Petitioner was last released on furlough, he has returned back in time, we are of the opinion that the authorities were not right in rejecting the application of the Petitioner for furlough on the ground that the co-accused Gorakh Lokhande, who was released on furlough, did not report back. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to pass the following order. 3. The Petitioner be released on furlough for a period of 15 days on the usual terms and conditions. 4. Writ Petition is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.]