{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.694 OF 2010 Shaikh Mehmud Shaikh Papamiya Through Paithan Open Prison Paithan, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. The Superintendent of Police (Rural) Aurangabad Dist-Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Ms. Shilpa Avachar, Advocate for petitioner (appointed) Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 1st September 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at {2} the stage of admission. 2. A communication, sent by the petitioner through jail, came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and we had accordingly appointed Advocate Ms.Shilpa Avachar, as a counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. This petition takes exception to an order dated 03.06.2010 passed by the authorities, declining to release the petitioner on furlough pursuant to his application dated 05.03.2010. 4. The application of the petitioner, for his release on furlough came to be rejected on twin grounds; firstly, it came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not furnished surety, which was the requirement of the release on furlough; and secondly, that if the petitioner is released on furlough the public peace and tranquility was likely to be affected. 5. According to us, the second ground that the release of the petitioner would affect the public peace and tranquility, is not a ground which is at all sustainable. The petitioner had earlier been released on parole and on furlough and there is nothing to indicate that the conduct of the petitioner was such that the public peace and tranquility had been affected. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, the second ground does not subsist. In {3} respect of the first ground, we are unable to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail on the petitioner furnishing personal bond without the petitioner being called upon to furnish surety. The judgment of the Supreme Court, in the matter of “State of Maharashtra and Another V/s Suresh Pandurang Darvakar” 2006 Cri.L.J. 3279, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is against the proposition, which is sought to be urged before us. 6. We, therefore, partly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to the rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that the release of the petitioner would affect the public peace and tranquility. We, therefore, direct the authorities to release the petitioner on furlough on the petitioner furnishing adequate surety to the satisfaction of the authorities. Writ petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute as indicated above. We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner, at Rs.1,500/- [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp694-10