mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1096 OF 2009 SACHIN GANPAT BADAMBE .. PETITIONER Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENTS Mr. N. N. Gawankar for the petitioner Mr. A. S. Gadkari, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 18/06/2009 P.C. The petitioner is a life convict. He is lodged in Kolhapur Central Prison. He is in jail for about 14 years. He was released on furlough on 26/11/07. He was to surrender to the prison on 24/12/07. He filed an application dated 15/12/07 for extension of furlough leave. The prison authorities did not pass any order on the said application till 24/12/07. By letter dated 27/12/07 the petitioner was informed that his application for extension of furlough leave is rejected. We are informed that this letter was received by the petitioner on 4/1/2008. 2. Mr. Gawankar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 27/12/07 the petitioner had inquired with the prison authorities about his pending application. He was told that it was rejected. He, therefore, immediately surrendered to the prison on 28/12/07. 3. It appears that when the petitioner was released on furlough, the prison authorities had taken usual bond from him in which he had undertaken that amount of Rs.8,000/- deposited by him as security deposit can be forfeited by the prison authorities in case of breach of condition imposed on him while releasing him on furlough. In view of the fact that the petitioner surrendered 3 days after the expiry of the furlough leave, the prison authorities forfeited his security deposit. The petitioner is aggrieved by this action and hence he has approached this court. 4. In our opinion, this is a fit case where a direction should be given to the prison authorities not to forfeit the security deposit amount. Admittedly the petitioner is in jail for about 14 years. His furlough leave was to expire on 24/12/07. Prior to that date on 15/12/07 he had made an application for extension of furlough leave. It was, therefore, necessary for the prison authorities to pass appropriate order thereon before the expiry of period of furlough. Obviously the petitioner was waiting for the order on his application for extension of furlough. The order came to be passed only on 27/12/07. It was communicated to him by a letter which was received on 4/1/2008. It is pertinent to note that it is the petitioner who phoned the prison authorities on 27/12/07 to inquire about his application. When he was told that his application is rejected, immediately on 28/12/07 he surrendered to the prison. 5. In our opinion, the prison authorities ought to have decided his application promptly. Hoping that his application would be granted the petitioner over stayed the furlough leave but promptly returned to prison when got to know that his application is rejected. We also note that for his three days over stay, the prison authorities have forfeited his remission. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, therefore, we direct the prison authorities to refund him the forfeited amount of Rs.8000/-. We have already indicated that this order is passed in the peculiar circumstances of the case. We make it clear that not in all cases can security deposit be returned on breach of conditions imposed. It will depend on the conduct of the accused in prison, his propensity and such other circumstances. Each case will have to be judged having regard to its factual matrix. 6. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE