RAJESH BHAURAO SADANSHIV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) The petitioner, who is a life convict sought furlough leave by application dated 11.9.2007. The competent authority rejected his application by order dated 9.1.2008 on the ground that in case the petitioner is released on furlough, there is danger to the life of the complainant and prosecution witnesses, which may create law and order problem. The said order of rejection is challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) It seems that the order rejecting the application for furlough is based on the report of Superintendent of Police, Akola, dated 14.12.2007, which is to the effect that in case of release of the petitioner, there is danger to the life of the complainant as well as prosecution witnesses. From this report the competent authority jumped to the conclusion that in case of release of the petitioner, law and order problem may be created. Now what is required to be considered by the competent authority while deciding an application for furlough is, whether the recommending authority does not recommend the release of the petitioner on the ground of public peace and tranquility. In the present case the report of Superintendent of Police, Akola dated 14.12.2007 does not at all show that he has any objection for release of the petitioner on the ground that there would be danger to public peace and tranquility. As such, the competent authority was not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough. The said order is thus illegal and cannot be upheld. We, therefore, pass the following order.