- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.125 OF 2010 Abdul Naser Basid Qazi ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri R.D. Sanap, Advocate for petitioner (appointed) Shri S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent ----- CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 2nd March, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DAVARE, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. A communication sent by the convict namely Abdul Naser Basid Qazi was considered as Writ Petition and the subject matter of the present petition is the challenge to the order dated 30.12.2009, passed by Special Inspector General of Prisons, Central region, Aurangabad, rejecting the furlough leave to the petitioner herein. - 2 - 3. The petitioner herein is the convict in Sessions Case No.52/2003, convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, District Latur, by judgment and order dated 10.6.2004, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and is undergoing the said sentence in Central Prison, Aurangabad. He applied for furlough leave, and through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad his application was forwarded to the D.I.G., Central Prison, Aurangabad on 2.11.2009. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Latur submitted the report to D.I.G., Central Region, Aurangabad on 24.11.2009 as well as the Additional District Magistrate submitted the report to D.I.G., Central Region, Aurangabad on 8.12.2009. Considering the said reports, the D.I.G., Central Region, Aurangabad passed the impugned order dated 30.12.2009 and thereby rejected the furlough leave sought by the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the convict/ petitioner has sent the communication to this Court, which was treated as writ petition, challenging the said order dated 30.12.2009 and requested for grant of furlough leave. 4. On notice to the respondents, Mr. Bharat s/o Mahadeo Bhosle, working as Additional Superintendent, Central Prison, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad has filed an affidavit-in- - 3 - reply and thereby opposed the present petition and it is submitted that the police report is adverse to the petitioner and it is also contended that the sister of the convict/ petitioner is ready to furnish the surety to the petitioner, but she had also given surety to her two brothers i.e. two co-accused in this case and they absconded for a long period. It is further submitted in the said affidavit-in-reply that thereafter the police authorities arrested them and produced in the jail. Hence, an apprehension is posed that if the petitioner is released on furlough leave, there is every possibility of disturbing peace as well as possibility of abscondance of the petitioner as well as there is possibility of danger to the life of complainant and witnesses from the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the D.I.G., Central Region, Aurangabad has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for furlough leave invoking the provisions of Section 4(4), 4(10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 by the impugned order dated 30.12.2009. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 6. Apparently, the police report dated 24.11.2009 and the impugned order dated 30.12.2009 disclose that the sister of the petitioner is ready and willing to stand as surety to the petitioner and there is no dispute about the same. However, the - 4 - apprehension is posed that the said sister stood surety to the two brothers of the petitioner herein who subsequently absconded and, therefore, there is every possibility that the petitioner also would abscond if released on furlough leave. However, the said apprehension posed by the respondent has no basis and foundation in law and the said apprehension cannot be construed as logical objection in law. In the said context, the respondent may impose suitable conditions upon the petitioner while releasing him on furlough leave and accordingly, there is no substance in the said objection and/or apprehension posed by the respondent herein. 7. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the present petition. In the result, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.12.2009 stands quashed and set aside and it is directed that the petitioner be released on furlough leave in accordance with the rules and regulations, after obtaining the necessary surety from the petitioner. Rule made absolute in above terms. We quantify the fees payable to learned counsel for the petitioner at Rs.2000/-. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.]’