1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 219/2009 Mohd. Imran Younus Shaikh, aged about 26 years, R/o: Ramnagar, P.S. Gondia City, Distt. Gondia C/7690,Central Prison, Nagpur. ... Petitioner. VERSUS 1. Deputy Inspector General of Prison (East), Nagpur. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur. ... Respondents .... Mr. N.A. Badar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Doifode, A.P.P. for the respondents. .... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ . DATE : 23/06/2009 JUDGMENT : (PER A.P.LAVANDE,J) The reply filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Badar, learned counsel for the petitioner 2 and Mr. Doifode, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. 3. Rule. 4. By consent heard forthwith. 5. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the respondent no.1 rejecting the furlough leave to the petitioner. The only ground mentioned in the impugned order for rejection of furlough is that there is adverse police report against the petitioner. There are absolutely no reasons stated in the impugned order for rejecting furlough to the petitioner. Simply stating that there is adverse police report in the impugned order is no good reason for rejecting furlough to the petitioner. The Respondent no.1 ought to have stated the reasons for rejecting furlough to the petitioner. On this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 6. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to pass fresh order within a period of two weeks in compliance with the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole ) Rules, 1959. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE JUDGE patle