9.Cri.WP.633.2026 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 633 OF 2026 Vishal S/o. Vinod Lanjewar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.Y. Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Narale, APP for the Respondents/State. ------------------------------- CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND R AJ D. WAKODE , JJ. DATE : 09.10.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 rejecting his request for release on furlough in view of Rule 7, sub-rule (2), of the Maharashtra (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024 (for short, “the said Rules”). 2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner is presently undergoing his sentence at Central Prison, Nagpur. 3. On 14.01.2026, the petitioner submitted an application seeking furlough leave to visit his ailing mother. Respondent No. 1 called for a verification report from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gondia. On 12.03.2026, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gondia, submitted an adverse report 2026:BHC-NAG:13582-DB 9.Cri.WP.633.2026 2/4 against the petitioner, stating that, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had been released on furlough leave but had surrendered 35 days beyond the stipulated period. Consequently, an offence punishable under Section 265 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was registered against him. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order passed by respondent No. 1 before the appellate authority, i.e., respondent No. 2. However, respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by respondent No. 1 without due application of mind. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Kolhapur in the case of Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari Vs. State of Maharashtra report in 2026 ALL MR CRI 2451, wherein this Court has considered the entire aspects and the object for grant of furlough leave as per Rule 3 of the said Rules and observed that the objective for grant of furlough leave as per Rule 3 of the 2024 Rules is to enable the prisoner to remain in touch with his family and deal with family matter, to provide relief from the detrimental impact of continuous captivity in prison and to enable the prisoner to remain hopeful about future and to cultivate active interest in life. Thus, it is very clear that very valuable right has been given to the convicted. 6. It is further observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Kolhapur that a perusal of Rule 7 and particularly sub- 9.Cri.WP.633.2026 3/4 rule (2) provides that if a prisoner overstays for period of 8 to 180 days, he is eligible for furlough leave only after one year from surrender upon overstay or two years after admission upon overstay. Similar provisions are made for various periods. The said sub-rule (2) clearly shows that the provision is made in a mechanical manner and the provision does not contemplate principles of natural justice. 7. It is further observed that there is substance in the contention raised by the learned of the prisoner that sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner submitted an application for furlough leave on 14.01.2026. Even if we accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, in view of sub-rule (2), a prisoner who overstays for a period of 8 to 180 days becomes eligible for furlough leave only after the expiry of one year, the application submitted by the petitioner before respondent No. 2 was premature at the relevant time. 9. In view of the above, we find it appropriate to permit the petitioner to approach respondent No. 2 afresh, as the period of one year from the date of overstay has already lapsed and the petitioner’s case falls within the period of overstay specified under the said Rules, i.e., 8 to 180 days. 9.Cri.WP.633.2026 4/4 10. Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application before respondent No. 2 seeking release on furlough leave. Respondent No. 2 shall consider the petitioner’s application afresh in the light of the judgment delivered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Kolhapur in Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein the entire issue has been dealt with, within a period of four weeks from today. 11. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Vijaykumar Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2026 20:09:53