1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 579/05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. R. Badar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kankale, A. P. P. for the Respondents. CORAM : D.S. Zoting & A. P. Lavande, JJ DATE : 1.2.2006 Heard Mr. Badar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kankale, the learned A. P. P. for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the D. I. G. Prison, Nagpur rejecting his application for grant of furlough leave. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order. The ground putforward by the D. I. G. Prison for rejection of the application of the petitioner for furlough is that whenever the petitioner was released on furlough he surrendered late. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner was released on furlough on 7.1.2000 and at that time he did not surrender on due date but he was late by five days. On the second occasion when he was released on parole on 5.7.1994 he surrendered late by 191 days and on the third occasion when he was again released on parole he surrendered late by 201 days. It is also 2 pointed out that again when the petitioner was released on parole on 15.4.2002, he had absconded and surrendered late by 473 days. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is in the habit of seeking parole or furlough and surrender late and he does not obey the directions given while releasing on parole or furlough. Taking into consideration the previous record pointed out as above, the possibility of his abscondance can not be overruled if he is released on furlough. Under such situation, in our opinion, this is not a fit case to grant furlough to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if he is released on furlough the petitioner shall not abscond and while releasing him on furlough strict conditions including sureties for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- may also be imposed. However, taking in to consideration the previous history as pointed out as above we are not impressed by the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition deserves to be rejected and thus rejected. Judge Judge patle 3