S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of a learned single judge, rejecting his writ petition, which had sought directions to quash the decision of the jail authorities, denying him furlough (from the sentence of imprisonment that he has to undergo).

2. The appellant has been in judicial custody for more than 10 years in a case under Section 420 of the IPC and is over 65 years old. He sought furlough in case RC No. 6 &7(S)/99 and the petitioner has applied for his first spell (of furlough) in that case but the request was rejected by competent authority on 09.08.2017. The appellant says that this was in spite of the fact that his conduct is satisfactory. He submits that he was granted parole in the year 2015, 2016 and 2017 and had never misused the liberty granted during those periods. He had previously filed Writ Petition seeking first spell furlough in 2017 to establish social ties with his family and society but that the petition was rejected. He again applied for grant of first spell furlough in 2017 to establish social ties with his family and society [W.P. (Crl.) 2811/2017] but it was again rejected by the court on 05.12.2017.

3. The appellant submits that the Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Special Public Prosecutor for CBI opposed the petition stating that the appellant was convicted in five cases besides the one in which he is seeking furlough in and furthermore in terms of Clause 26.2 (of the Parole/Furlough Guidelines: 2010) [hereafter “the Guidelines”], a convict seeking grant of furlough should not be a “habitual offender”. It is submitted that clause 24 of the Guidelines provides that a prisoner sentenced to five years or more of rigorous imprisonment and has undergone imprisonment for three years or more period excluding remission, can be released on furlough.

4. The appellant’s counsel argued that he has already served more than 10 years in judicial custody without remissions. He was implicated as accused in six cases starting from the year 1996. All those cases were of the same nature and most investigating officers and witnesses were common in all cases and only complainants were different. The appellant was also in custody; yet intentionally and deliberately different cases were filed and charge sheets were filed at different times only with the intent to keep him in long judicial custody. It is submitted that in case under Section 420 of IPC the petitioner was sentenced for 19 years 9 months. The details of the cases are as under :

S.No.	Case No.	Under Section	Conviction	Status
I	RC 4(S)/01 SIC-1/CBI	U/S 380/419/420/465/467/471/120B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT.	R.I. FOR 03 YEARS & FINE RS. 10,000/- I.D 09 MONTH S.I.	Sentence completed on 16.01.2013, Fine Paid
II	RC 7(S)/98	U/S 419/420/511/120B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT.	R.I. FOR 09 MONTHS & FINE RS. 20,000/- I.D 08 MONTHS	Sentence completed on 02.07.2013,Fine paid
III	RC 3(S)/98	U/S 419/420/465/467/471/411/474/380/120B IPC	R.I. FOR 03 YEARS & FINE RS. 28,500/- I.D 27 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS S.I.,	Sentence completed on 12.09.2014, fine paid
IV	RC 4(S)/98	U/S 471/419/465/467/468/120B IPC	R.I. FOR 03 YEARS & FINE RS. 14,000/- I/D 12 MONTHS S.I.	Sentence completed, fine paid
V	RC 6&7(S)/99	U/S380/419/420/467/120B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT	R.I FOR 3 YEARS & FINE RS. 7,000	Undergoing sentence and fine paid in court
VI	RC 5(S)/01	U/S. 379/380/465/468/471/120B IPC & 12 PASSPORT ACT	R.I FOR 07 YEARS & FINE RS. 40,000/- I.D 07 YEARS S.I.	Sentence completed for two years and five months during trial and appeal is pending before this Court (Crl.No.236/2013)

5. It is argued that the appellant is not a habitual offender, but in all the cases the CBI arrested him in one case, and thereafter chose to