1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Criminal Writ Petition no.23 of 2011 Shri Sanjay Gadekar, Prisoner no. 816, Presently lodged at Central Jail Aguada Through his sister Smt. Sheela Barreto Resident of H.No.122(2), Gauthan vaddo, Bhoma, Banastari, Ponda, Goa. …. Petitioner V e r s u s 1. State of Goa, through Under Secretary, Home Department (G), Secretariat, Alto Porvorim, Goa. 2. The Inspector General of Prison Collectorate Building (North) Panaji-Goa. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Jail Aguada, Singquerim, Aguada-Goa. … Respondents Ms. Smita S. Gawas, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.A. Ferreria, Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2 Coram: A. P. Lavande, Date: 8th April, 2011. Judgment: Heard Ms. Gawas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. The petitioner who has been convicted under Sections 302,120B r/w 34 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life challenges the order dated 13/12/2010 passed by the respondent no.2 rejecting furlough to the petitioner. 4. The furlough sought by the petitioner has been refused on the ground that the petitioner had already availed the facility of furlough within a period of one year. In terms of Rule 310 of the Goa Prison Rules, 2006 in 3 respect of an accused who has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, his application for furlough is to be considered on merits within a period of six months of actual imprisonment to be counted from last return from furlough, in case the petitioner has been released on furlough on two occasions. 5. Reply filed on behalf of the respondents discloses that the petitioner was released on furlough on earlier two occasions. 6. In view of the above position, it is evident that rejection of furlough to the petitioner on that the ground that he has already availed the facility of furlough within one year is patently unsustainable in law. 7. This being the position, the impugned order rejecting furlough to the petitioner is liable to be quashed 4 and set aside. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order date 13/12/2010 passed by the respondent no.2 rejecting furlough to the petitioner is quashed and set aside and the respondent no.2 is directed to take decision afresh in accordance with the Goa Prison Rules, 2006 within a period of four weeks from today. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-