Rule.
Mr.J.K.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State waives service of Rule for the respondent-State.
The instant application is forwarded by the applicant-convict challenging the order of competent authority dated 11.05.2012, whereby the furlough leave was denied.
Having considered the application, so also jail remark-sheet, it transpires that while the applicant was released on temporary bail in the Year-2006, he remained absconding for 1063 days and on that count, three future furlough leaves were forfeited but, subsequently vide order dated 17.11.2011, concession was given by the competent jail authority and only two future furlough leaves were ordered to be confiscated.
In above view of matter, order of the competent authority dated 11.05.2012 cannot be said to be oppressive or contrary to rule. In the said order itself it is observed that in future, the applicant may apply for furlough leave.
In above view of the matter, the application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,J.) Girish Top