BALU @ SAVLERAM UBALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) The petitioner herein, is undergoing sentence of life in the Open Prison at Aurangabad. He was convicted for the offences alleged against him on 21/04/2003. Therefore, he applied for furlough on 29/03/2013 to the Superintendent of Open Prison, Aurangabad. However, his application is turned down. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) In pursuant to the notice issued to the respondents, Mr. Anil Raghunath Wandekar, working as Incharge Superintendent, Aurangabad Central Prison, District Aurangabad has filed affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In paragraph-4 of the said affidavit in reply it is stated that, the application of the petitioner for furlough leave is rejected since respondent No. 2 held that, the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In paragraph-5 of the affidavit in reply it is stated that, in the impugned order by which application of the petitioner for furlough leave has been rejected, does mention that, prisoner convicted "for the offence such as dacoity. terrorist crimes, kidnapping, smuggling etc. are not entitled for release on furlough leave". It is further stated that, in view of amended provision under Rule 4(13) of the said Rules, respondent No. 2 has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner.