(1.) Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
(2.) By way of this application, the applicant challenges an order dtd. 10/1/2023 passed by the Sanctioning Authority whereby the first furlough leave application of the present applicant has been rejected inter alia on the ground (1) that the applicant is convicted of serious offences punishable under Sec. 376(2)(N) amongst others of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of the POCSO Act, (2) that the opinion of the Police is negative and (3)the complainant having voiced his apprehension that in case the present applicant is released on furlough leave that he might harass the complainant and his family members or generally create nuisance.
(3.) This Court has heard learned APP Mr. Soni and perused the original papers which has led to order dtd. 10/1/2023 being passed. In the considered opinion of this Court, none of the aspects as have weighed with authority concerned, were germane to the issue in question. Insofar as the issue no. 1 is concerned about the applicant being convicted of offences punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code etc., and under the provisions of POCSO Act etc., it is required to be mention that Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rule, 1959 inter alia lais down categories of prisoners who shall not be considered for release on furlough. It would appear that persons who have been convicted for offences punishable under Ss. 392 to 402 of the Indian Penal Code, persons who have been convicted under the Bombay Prohibition Act and persons who have been convicted under the NDPS Act , would not be considered for release on parole. It does not appear that offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code or under the provisions of the POCSO Act, would render the applicant dis-entitled for being considered for furlough leave as per Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rule, 1959.