1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.565 OF 2009 Bharat Krishnarao Mohadikar. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. -------- Shri. V.M. Humbe, Advocate, appointed for the petitioner. Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE : 6th AUGUST 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner’s request for furlough leave was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad by an order dated 21st May 2009. One of the grounds is that while the petitioner was released on furlough on 3-10-2007 the petitioner did not surrender in 2 time and he was arrested by police after 93 days of the date of the surrender. Therefore the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad by referring to the provision of rules 4(4),(6) and (10) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 exercised his jurisdiction by rejecting the application. 3) The learned counsel Shri. Humbe has brought to our notice a circular issued by the Home Department dated 25th October 2001. According to the counsel, the police report is in favour of the petitioner and there is no need to assume that the petitioner would repeat the same performance by not surrendering in time. 4) The learned APP submits that the tendency of over staying and not surrendering in time to the jail authorities is growing. The petitioner’s case is one of such cases. According to the APP, the police report is not entirely in favour of the petitioner. 3 5) We have considered the submissions advanced, perused the Furlough rules and necessary papers placed before us. 6) The tendency of overstaying the leave period and to disappear after the person is released on leave is noticed in some cases brought before us. We had even called for a chart of cases wherein a list was provided to this Court regarding persons who did not surrender to jail authorities after they were released on parole or furlough leave. The State Government in Home Department is required to look into the legislative aspect of the conditions of releasing persons on parole and furlough leave. Some mechanism is required to be devised so that tendency of overstay and not to surrender to jail authorities is curtailed, curbed and discouraged. 7) In the facts of this case, we find that the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Aurangabad has rejected the application of the 4 petitioner. At this stage we do not find any error in the order. No interference is required by this Court. 8) The writ petition is dismissed. Authenticated copy be provided to the APP. The Registry to forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra and the Inspector General of Prisons, Maharashtra State. 9) Counsel Mr. Humbe was appointed for the petitioner. The High Court Legal Services Sub Committee Aurangabad shall pay the fees to the counsel as per rules. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crwp.565.09