1 wp.2372.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2372 OF 2010 Mohammad Javed Nisar Ahmed Ansari ...Petitioner Versus D.I.G. (Prisons) Western Region, Pune & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Ms.Indu Verma, appointed Advocate for Petitioner. Ms.S.V.Gajare, A.P.P. for State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED:- AUGUST 31, 2010. P.C. 1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed through jail. It is prayed that direction be issued to the Respondents to release the Petitioner on furlough leave in lieu of cash bond. The objection on behalf of the State is that the Petitioner is not able to furnish surety, and cash bond by itself, may not be sufficient. Besides, the Petitioner will have to furnish surety bond of relative willing to receive the Petitioner while on furlough leave. The argument of the Respondents will have to be stated to be rejected. Rule 10 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 plainly provides that the Sanctioning Authority shall grant furlough to a prisoner subject to his executing a personal bond or giving cash security 2 wp.2372.10.sxw in Form `C’. Form `C’ as prescribed under the Rules is to be executed by the convict himself. Suffice it to observe that furnishing of cash security is recognised by the Rules itself. It is, therefore, too late in the day for the Respondents to resist the request of the Petitioner which is made in the present Petition. 2. Insofar as the insistence for furnishing surety of relative willing to receive the Petitioner, even this argument of the Respondent will have to be tested on the basis of the proviso to Rule 6 of the same Rules. The proviso authorises the Sanctioning Authority to dispense with the requirement of execution of bond by relatives of prisoners as required under Rule 6 in respect of convicts who are undergoing imprisonment in open prisons as defined by Clause (b) of Rule 2 of the Maharashtra Open Prisons Rule, 1971. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is covered by the category of open prisoners as defined in Clause (b) of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1971. If so, the competent Authority may have to consider the request of the Petitioner keeping in mind the discretion available under the proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1959. 3. In view of the above, we dispose of this Petition with direction to the 3 wp.2372.10.sxw appropriate Authority to reconsider the request of the Petitioner for grant of furlough leave afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. If the Petitioner deserves to be released on furlough leave, it will be open for the appropriate Authority to impose such conditions as may be just and proper in the fact situation of the present case. The appropriate Authority shall, however, take final decision in the matter not later than six weeks from today. 4. We express word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as amicus curiae. 5. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Petitioner, who is in jail. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)