Important Point - The Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

3. The relevant facts of the case as disclosed in the memo of Petition are as under:

The petitioner is convicted by the Sessions Court at Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

4. In the year 2012, the petitioner had applied for furlough leave to respondent no.2 i.e. Dy. Inspector General, Western Region, Pune. Respondent no.2 was pleased to sanction/approve such leave to the petitioner on 17th August, 2012. After completing the requisite formalities, the petitioner came to be released from Yerwada Central Prison, Pune, on 16th October, 2012 for a period of 14 days. However, it is transpired that, during the said period, the petitioner’s father became ill, and the petitioner was required to cater to him and nurse him. Therefore, the petitioner applied for another 14 days leave extension to respondent no.2. Upon conducting the requisite enquiries, respondent no.2 Dy. Inspector General Prisons, Western Region, Yerwada, Pune-6, approved extension of furlough leave to the petitioner for further period of 14 days. Thus, the petitioner was to surrender on 14th November, 2012.

5. On 14th November, 2012, the petitioner had left his house early. However, on account of the agitation by the sugarcane farmers, he could reach the prison only at 3.00 p.m. on 14th November, 2012. However, the concerned employees of the Jail, who were on duty at main gate of the Yerwada Prison, did not permit the petitioner to surrender, as the prison gates were closed for the day on account of there being a holiday owing to ‘Moharam’ festival. An authorities concerned directed the petitioner to surrender on the next day i.e. on 15th November, 2012. On account of these transpirations, the petitioner was forced to surrender on 15th November, 2012. Once having so surrendered, the petitioner also applied to respondent no.2 Dy. Inspector General Prisons, Western Region, Yerwada, Pune-6 to grant him one day leave extension. However, without at all considering the facts and circumstances involved, respondent no.2 Dy. Inspector General Prisons, Western Region, Yerwada, Pune6, confiscated/forfeited the petitioner’s deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- by holding that, he was late by one day. This was done by respondent no.2 Dy. Superintendent of Prisons by taking aid of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prison Rules, 1979, particularly, sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of the Prisons [Bombay Furlough and Parole] Rules, 1959, chapter 37.

6. The petitioner has also made a written representation dated 31st December, 2016, to the High Court, inter alia, praying that respondent no.2 be directed to grant one day leave extension or in the alternative, to set aside the confiscation of his cash surety amount of Rs.10,000/-. The Superintendent of Visapur Open District Prison forwarded the petitioner’s representation to the Registrar of this Court, vide his communication dated 16th January, 2017.

7. The petitioner was prevented from approaching the Prison on the scheduled date on account of genuine reason. The petitioner had left his house early on 14th November, 2012, however, on account of the agitation by the sugarcane farmers, the petitioner was late in reaching the prison on 14th November, 2012. However, the petitioner, on account of aforesaid genuine reason, could reach the prison only at 3.00 p.m. Thus, the petitioner was late by a mere matter of four and half hours. That apart, on reaching the prison, the authorities concerned informed the petitioner that, the prison gates had been closed early on account of ‘Moharam’ holiday on that day i.e. on 14th November, 2012. These authorities directed the petitioner to come on the next day i.e. on 15th November, 2012. Thus, it is crystal clear that, the petitioner had made every attempt to reach and to surrender himself on 14th