The rejection of furlough applications based on arbitrary surety evaluations and inadequate police reports violates procedural fairness; clear guidelines and detailed justifications are necessary.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN JAMDAR, J.

1. Rule in all these Petitions. Returnable forthwith.

Respondents waive service. Taken for disposal.

2. By these Petitions, the Petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the Respondents rejecting their applications for furlough leave and the appeals filed by them. A common judgment is passed in these Petitions because the Respondent-Authorities have rejected the application for Furlough on two grounds common to all the Petitioners. These two grounds are that there is an adverse police report, and second, the surety given by the Petitioners is not satisfactory.

3. In Writ Petition No. 204 of 2022, the Petitioner had applied for furlough leave which was rejected on 13 October 2021 on the ground that the surety given by the Petitioner travels out of town for business and will not be able to control the Petitioner. Secondly, the police report stated the possibility of the Petitioner being angry with the Complainant and witnesses and creating a law and order situation. Therefore, he cannot be released on furlough leave. The appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected by order dated 21 December 2021.

4. In Writ Petition No. 704 of 2022, the Petitioner had applied for furlough leave which was rejected on 13 October 2021 on the same grounds as in Writ Petition No.204 of 2022 that the surety given by the Petitioner travels out of town for business and will not be able to control the Petitioner. Secondly, the police report was that there was the possibility of the Petitioners being angry with the Complainant and witnesses and creating a law and order situation. Therefore, he cannot be released on furlough leave. The appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected by order dated 21 December 2021.

5. In Writ Petition No. 972 of 2022, the Petitioner applied for Furlough leave, which was rejected by the Respondents by order dated 20 July 2021 on the ground that the surety furnished was improper. It was stated that the surety was in private service, and he is not the full owner of the house and is not competent to control the activities of the Petitioner, based on the police report received. The appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected by order dated 4 October 2021.

6. In Writ Petition No. 2104 of 2022, the Application filed by Petitioner for furlough leave was rejected on the ground that the surety given was not satisfactory as the surety for service is outside the house during the day and will not be able to monitor and control the activities of the Petitioner. Also, the police report has stated that if the Petitioner is released, a law and order situation may be created, and there could be a danger to the life of the Complainant and the witnesses. The police report was accepted, and the application for furlough leave was rejected by order dated 7 March 2022. The appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected by order dated 24 May 2022.

7. In Writ Petition No. 206 of 2022, the application of the Petitioner for furlough leave was rejected on three grounds. Firstly, when the Petitioner was released on bail on 12 September 2014, he did not return in time and was brought back after 389 days. Secondly, the Petitioner is part of the gang; thirdly, the surety is not satisfactory. The application for furlough leave was rejected by order dated 12 June 2019, and the appeal of the Petitioner was rejected by order dated 4 February 2020. As regards the Petitioner being a part of the gang, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that the Petitioner was acquitted of the earlier offence punishable under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999. Regarding the surety, the Respon