Rajendra Datta Zarekar through his brother Sandesh Zarekar vs State of Goa and The Superintendent of Prisons

A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mrs. Dessai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.

Rule. By consent heard forthwith.

By this petition, the Petitioner challenges one of the conditions for release of the Petitioner on furlough.

By order dated 16th December, 2010, the Petitioner, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for having committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 342 of I.P.C., has been granted furlough by Respondent No. 2 subject to certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions of the impugned order is that the Petitioner should execute the personal bond for Rs. 1 Lac and one surety in the like amount giving cash or otherwise.

According to Mrs. Dessai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is coming from poor family and as such, is not in a position to furnish surety for the sum of Rs. 1 Lac, which is highly excessive.

Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents states that the Petitioner be called upon to give surety for reasonable amount. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Petitioner to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-and one surety in the like amount either by way of cash or otherwise, instead of Rs. 1 Lac as ordered by Respondent No. 2.

The impugned order stands modified accordingly.

Rule is made partly absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.