IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.705 of 2009 Rajendra s/o Sitaram Sonawane ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENTS. & others. ----- Mr. R.S.Shinde, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr. B.J.Sonwane, APP, for the respondent/State ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 17.8.2009. PER COURT : 1 The petitioner challenges the order bearing No. Justice Divn.1/CP/2913/2009, dated 19.5.2009, passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Prisons, Aurangabad. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner (2) submits that the petitioner’s right to be released on furlough leave was rejected on the ground of violation of provisions of Section 4(4), 4(6), 4(1) of the Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The learned counsel placed reliance on Full Bench decision reported in AIR 1987 Gujarat 136, Bhikhabhai Devshi vs State of Gujarat and others. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was punished under the relevant Furlough Rules for violating the rules as he surrendered late before the jail authorities. As the petitioner had already suffered punishment, the petitioner’s application for furlough leave cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner is habituated to surrender late to the jail authorities. We have perused the cited judgment. 3 We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State, who has supported the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Prisons, Aurangabad. We find that though certain rights are conferred on the convicts under law, the (3) same are to be regulated and controlled by the authorities, so that jail discipline is maintained and tendency to violate the conditions of leave is not encouraged in any manner. It is true that for the earlier lapse on the part of the petitioner, he was punished in accordance with law by reduction of his remission days, but in the fact situation of the case, the convict would not be entitled to argue that he would surrender late and meet out the punishment and continue to do so. This argument is not sustainable and acceptable to us. 4 Considering the facts of the case, the Deputy Inspector General, Central Prisons, Aurangabad has rightly exercised his powers which would curb the tendency of the convict to surrender late to the jail authorities without prior permission. However, the petitioner’s right to file an application for leave in future is not at all curtailed. 5 For the present, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the (4) authority concerned. The petition stands dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application for furlough leave at an appropriate stage and in case such application is filed, the Deputy Inspector General, Central Prisons, Aurangabad would pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] dbm/crwp705.09