BHIMAPPA BARIKAI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P., heard finally.

(2.) The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "?I.P.C. "?) in the open prison at Paithan, District Aurangabad. It is the case of the petitioner that during his twelve years period in jail, he has never availed of the furlough or parole. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Region, Aurangabad, vide order dated 31st March, 2016, allowed the application filed by the petitioner for grant of furlough. However, the petitioner is asked to execute a surety bond of his relative. According to the petitioner, since he cannot furnish the said surety, he is unable to avail of the furlough.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that the Authority concerned has discretion to dispense with the requirement of furnishing surety bond of the relative and the petitioner can be released on execution of personal bond, invited our attention to Rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kumar Rama Gowda v. The State of Maharashtra and others 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 2809 .