2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY(NAGPUR BENCH)

A.P. LAVANDE AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.

Vasudeo @ Vikas Vasant Awasthi Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Criminal Writ Petition No.635 of 2007

14th February, 2008

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. V. M. DESHPANDE
Respondent Counsel: Mr. T. A. MIRZA

Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules (1959), R.4(10) - Application for furlough - Rejection of application - Challenge to - Applicant not returning back to prison when he was released earlier on furlough - Moreover, on one occasion applicant had to be arrested after period of 10 years - Therefore, held, the competent authority was justified in placing reliance upon Rule 4(10) of the Rules and reject application. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

A. P. LAVANDE, J.:- Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Mirza, learned APP for the respondents.

2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the parties.

3. Mr. Mirza, learned APP waives notice on behalf of the respondents.

4. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Competent Authority rejecting furlough leave sought by the petitioner on the ground that when the petitioner was released earlier on furlough on four occasions, the petitioner did not surrender back in time and on one occasion he had to be arrested after the period of 10 years. Placing reliance upon Rule 4(10) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959 (for short "the Rules") the Competent Authority has passed the impugned order.

5. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already suffered inasmuch as sentence of cut in remissions as well as permanent removal name of the petitioner from Remission Register has been imposed upon the petitioner, and, therefore, this is a fit case in which the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, Mr. Mirza, learned A.P.P. for the respondents supports the impugned order.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no merit in the present petition. Indisputably, the petitioner has not returned back to the prison when he was released earlier on furlough. Moreover, on one occasion he had to be arrested after the period of 10 years. Therefore, the Competent Authority was justified in placing reliance upon Rule 4(10) of the Rules and reject the application of the petitioner.

8. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the present petition. Rule is, therefore, discharged. Fees payable to Adv. V. M. Deshpande, who is appointed under Legal Aid Scheme is quantified at Rs.750/- (Rupees seven hundred fifty only).

Application rejected.