10w633-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.633 OF 2010 Rajendra @ Raju Sitaram Sonavne. .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. .... Mr.N.N. Gavankar i/b. Mr.Arfan Sait, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner’s application for furlough leave. It has been rejected on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner had given threats to the complainant while he was on leave on earlier occasion for which a complaint bearing No.258/2009 had been lodged with the Jalgaon taluka police station against him by the complainant, and that on 6.8.2009, while in jail, he gave threats to one Rajendra Sapkale, perhaps on mobile phone. Secondly, it was 10w633-10 2 rejected on the ground that on earlier occasion when he was granted such leave he overstayed and was required to be arrested and brought back to the jail. 3. Mr.Gavankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that in September, 2007 when the petitioner was released on parole leave, he did not surrender and overstayed for 81 days and was required to be brought back by use of police machinery. There is no dispute that the case of the petitioner falls in the category of the prisoners who overstayed and are required to be brought back by use of police machinery. Mr.Gavankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner, in view thereof, has already been punished once by forfeiture of remission and, therefore, the respondent cannot now reject the application of the petitioner on the ground that he overstayed and was required to be brought back by use of police machinery. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Section 48-A(3) of the Prison Act. We have perused the impugned order, so also the relevant rule and in our opinion, the submission of Mr.Gavankar is devoid of any merits. From bare perusal of sub-section 3 of Section 48-A, it is clear that there is no bar in rejecting the application for furlough on this ground in addition to the forfeiture of remission. Moreover, it is clear from the impugned order that the petitioner's application was also rejected on the ground 10w633-10 3 that he had given threats to the complainant and to one Mr.Rajendra Sapkale. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. Dismissal of the Petition, however, shall not preclude the petitioner from applying for such leave in future, if the law so permits, and if such an application is made, the same may be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with law. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)