1 Cr.WP 610/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.610 OF 2009 Shaikh Ameen Shaikh Bapu ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. -------- Smt. V.A. Shinde, Advocate appointed for the petitioner. Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 6th AUGUST 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner, life convict, is undergoing sentence for offences punishable under sections 302, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, since 15-2-1992. It is revealed that the petitioner was granted 30 days’ furlough on 19.9.1995. However he did not surrender in time and came to be 2 Cr.WP 610/2009 arrested by the police authorities on 5-5-2004, which shows that he overstayed leave period by 3118 days. 3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2007 the petitioner was released on parole and he surrendered in time. 4) We have perused the report filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Police to the Jail authorities dated 18-3-2009. The report is adverse. In spite of past history of petitioner’s overstaying leave period for abnormal period of more than 8 and half years, the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons by order dated 27th April 2009 granted furlough on conditions of furnishing PR Bond of Rs.25000 and on furnishing surety of relatives and non relatives in the like amount. 5) In Criminal Writ Petition No.565 of 2009 (Bharat Krishnarao Mohadikar vs. The State) decided today by us it is noticed that the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons had rejected the 3 Cr.WP 610/2009 furlough to the petitioner therein on the ground that he overstayed the leave period by 93 days and the petitioner therein had to be arrested by police. Reliance was placed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons on the provisions of rules 4(4),(6) and (10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. But in the present case though the petitioner was overstayed leave period for more than 8 and half years and had to be arrested, the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons had granted the furlough to the petitioner. We find disparities in the approach of the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons in deciding applications of this nature. 6) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that, though the petitioner was released on parole in the year 2007 and he surrendered in time. 7) As the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons had passed order the petitioner can avail of the benefit of the order if the terms and conditions of the order are complied with. The 4 Cr.WP 610/2009 request of the petitioner seeking directions to the Tahsildar need not be granted by this Court. The petitioner will have to satisfy the conditions imposed by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons in the order granting furlough. 8) Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, no interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. 9) The writ petition is dismissed. The counsel was appointed for the petitioner. The High Court Legal Services Sub Committee Aurangabad shall pay the counsel’s fees as per rules. A.P.P. to forward copy of the order to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons. Authenticated copy be provided to the A.P.P. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crwp.610.09