1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.430/2010 [Raghunath Fagunath Lingayat .vrs. The DIG Prison (E)(R), Nagpur and another] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 10, 2010. Heard Ms. Tajwar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned APP for the respondents. By this petition the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, seeks extension of validity of order granting furlough issued by the competent authority. Reply filed on behalf of the respondents discloses that the petitioner was granted furlough for a period of 2 weeks by order dated 3.11.2009 but he did not execute the surety bond as required on the ground that his surety was ill. In terms of Rule 3 Sub Rule 2 Note 5 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the validity of order granting furlough is 2 valid for 2 months from the date of furlough. On the basis of the Circular issued by the Inspector General of Prison, Pune, the time for executing the bond was extended by a period of 2 months. Within the extended time also, the petitioner did not execute the bond and as such the order in favour of the petitioner has lapsed. In view of the above position, we are of the considered opinion that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh application seeking furlough. Needless to mention that if such application is filed, the competent authority shall decide the same in terms of the rule. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. The fees of Advocate Ms. Tajwar Khan, who has been appointed to appear on behalf of the petitioner, are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande