AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard, Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for respondents. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition imposed by order dated 17.09.2012, passed by respondent No. 2 granting furlough to him to the extent it directs the petitioner to furnish a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount or give cash security.
Perusal of record discloses that the petitioner was earlier granted furlough subject to execution of personal bond with one surety of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only).
According to Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, considering the financial position of the petitioner, the condition imposed by respondent No. 2 calling upon the petitioner to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount is harsh and the petitioner is not able to furnish security and as such the petitioner would be deprived of his right to be released on furlough.
Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the earlier order dated 20-09-2010, he has no objection if the petitioner is released on furlough by executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
In view of the above, the order granting the petitioner to furnish personal bond and surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount is modified and the petitioner is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The order dated 17-09-2012 stands modified accordingly. The other terms and conditions shall remain. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.