SUNIL BALASAHEB KANDEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Learned A.P.P. waives service of rule. By consent. rule is heard forthwith.

(2.) HEARD the learned advocate for the petitioner prisoner and the learned A.P.P. The petitioner has moved this petition through jail and prayed for furlough leave as the authority has rejected the application for furlough. The petitioner-convict was convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code etc. as per the judgment and order of conviction dt. 3rd February, 1995. The application for furlough leave was moved at the instance of the Prisoner wherein, the prisoner has suggested his brother as his surety. After getting the application for furlough, the jail authority has called for the police opinion and the police opinion was adverse to the prisoner. The jail authority has again called for the police report on 25th June, 1997 and gain the police report was against the prisoner as per the report dated 8th August, 1997. The record indicates that the surety suggested by the prisoner is the brother of the convict and he will not monitor during the furlough leave when the prisoner is to get his furlough leave. The surety suggested by the prisoner is also residing in Pune and he is serving outside the Pune. The reason for rejecting for furlough leave, in our view, is not proper. Accordingly, the order rejecting furlough leave passed by the authority is set aside. The prisoner is ordered to be released on furlough on usual terms. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.