MURLIDHAR RAMCHANDRA BHALERAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Samundre, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Mirza, learned APP for the Respondents.

(2.) The Petitioner had preferred an application for furlough. It came to be rejected by an order dated 08.12.2010. Being aggrieved thereby, this petition has been preferred praying that the said order be set aside and the Petitioner be released on furlough.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application for furlough came to be rejected only on the ground that the surety proposed by the Petitioner was not willing to stand as surety for him. He submitted that in fact the surety proposed by the Petitioner is willing to stand as surety, hence the order of rejection deserves to be set aside and the Petitioner is entitled to be released on furlough. He has submitted that this is evident from the fact that the application for furlough has been rejected under Rule 6 of the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959.