Bombay High Court
DURGAPRASAD OMPRAKASH MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the furlough leave cannot be extended under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Prison (Furlough and Payrole) Rules, 2024, but allowed a fresh application and ordered the Tehsildar to pay cost for his negligence.
Summary
The petitioner, Durgaprasad Omprakash Mishra, sought extension of a 28‑day furlough leave granted on 25‑09‑2025, arguing that the leave expired because Respondent No.3 (the Tehsildar) failed to process the required surety bond. The respondents contended that once the furlough period lapses, it cannot be extended under the Maharashtra Prison (Furlough and Payrole) Rules, 2024. The Court examined Rule 24, which mandates execution of a surety bond before furlough can be availed, and noted that the Tehsildar’s inaction caused the petitioner’s deprivation. It held that Rule 10 of the Rules expressly prohibits extending furlough beyond the sanctioned period, irrespective of administrative delay. Consequently, the Court declined to extend the furlough but permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application, and ordered Respondent No.3 to deposit Rs.10,000 as cost for his negligence, to be used for a charitable purpose. The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions.
Issues considered
- Can a furlough leave granted under the Maharashtra Prison (Furlough and Payrole) Rules, 2024 be extended after its expiry due to failure to execute the surety bond?
- Is the court empowered to direct the Tehsildar (Respondent No.3) to pay cost for his inaction causing loss of furlough leave?
- Is the petitioner entitled to be released on furlough despite the lapse caused by administrative delay?
Subjects
- furlough leave
- surety bond
- Maharashtra Prison (Furlough and Payrole) Rules, 2024
- administrative delay
- cost imposition
- prison administration
- writ petition
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:10801-DB
cri.wp-122-2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.122 OF 2026
Durgaprasad Omprakash Mishra
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
…
Ms. Sharda P. Chate for the petitioner.
Mr. Govind A. Kulkarni, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : 9TH MARCH 2026
PER COURT (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde):-
1. Heard.
2. By this Writ Petition the petitioner is seeking following reliefs :
“a) That this Criminal Writ Petition may be allowed
b) That, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue Writ,
mandamus or any appropriate Order, or directions to the
Respondent No. 2 to extend the furlough leave period granted
vide order dated 25.09.2025 in the interest of Justice.
c) Direct the Respondent No.2 to release the petitioner on
furlough leave, ignoring the lapse caused due to administrative
delay. In the interest of Justice.
d) Initiate appropriate action or inquiry against respondent no.3
for failure to perform statuary duties in time.
e) Such further and other orders are passed as this Hon'ble court
may deem just, fit and proper under the circumstances of the
case.
f) The Petitioner is in jail affidavit may kindly be dispensed
with.”
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after finding
Narwade
cri.wp-122-2026
-2-
that the petitioner is eligible for furlough leave of 28 days, the
petitioner made an application in that regard. The said application
was forwarded to Respondent No.2-the Superintendent of Harsool
Open Prison, District Aurangabad who allowed the said application on
25.09.2025. She would further submit that in order to ascertain that
the petitioner executes surety bond, the Respondent No.2 on
06.10.2025 intimated Respondent No.3 herein to do the needful with
regard to the execution of surety bond. She would further submit that
due to inaction on the part of Respondent no.3 in completing the
formality of execution of surety bond, the period of furlough has
expired and therefore she would urge that the period of furlough
leave granted on 25.09.2025 be extended.
4. Per contra, the learned APP would submit that considering the
application filed by the petitioner, the Respondent no.2 has passed an
order on 25.09.2025 thereby granting furlough leave to the petitioner
for a period of 28 days. He further submits that it is due to inaction
on the part of Respondent no.3 in completing the process of surety
bond, despite Respondent no.2 having passed the order the petitioner
has been deprived of furlough leave. Since the petitioner could not
furnish surety bond the period of furlough leave of 28 days has been
Narwade
cri.wp-122-2026
-3-
expired and the said period of furlough leave having once expired
cannot be extended. He therefore, urge that the petitioner is not
entitled for extension of furlough leave.
5. While issuing notice to the Respondents, in addition to the
usual mode of service the petitioner was permitted to serve
Respondent No.3 through all permissible modes of service.
Accordingly, learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed Service
Affidavit stating that Respondent No.3 has been duly served. We find
that despite service of notice Respondent No.3 did not appear.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, we find that by an
order dated 25.09.2025 the furlough leave was granted to the
petitioner for 28 days, however, due to non-execution of surety bond,
the petitioner could not avail the said furlough leave. We also find
that the said period cannot be extended since Rule 10 of the
Maharashtra Prison (Furlough and Payrole) Rules, 2024 (for short
“the Rules, 2024”) does not permit for extension of furlough beyond
sactioned period in any circumstsances. We find that for no fault on
the part of the petitioner he has been deprived from being released on
furlough leave due to inaction on the part of Respondent no.3 in
Narwade
cri.wp-122-2026
-4-
doing needful regarding execution of surety bond.
7. Though we are not inclined to consider the prayer for extension
of furlough leave at this juncture, we, however, grant liberty to the
petitioner to make fresh application in that regard and Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 may consider the said application on its own merit.
8. Rule 24 (1) of the Rules, 2024 make it mandatory to provide
surety in order to avail furlough, which reads thus:
“Rule 24. Submission of surety, personal bond and cash security.
(1) The Sanctioning Authority may grant furlough or parole to the
prisoner subject to his executing a Personal Bond in Form E and
Cash Security in Form F to observe all or any of the conditions
mentioned therein and also subject to such other conditions, if
any, as may be specified by the Sanctioning Authority. No
prisoner shall be granted furlough or parole unless he can
provide a suitable surety willing to receive him. The surety
chosen must be willing to enter into a Surety Bond as in Form C
appended to these rules for such amount as may be fixed by the
Sanctioning Authority.
(2) The surety may be furnished either to the Tahsildar of the area
where the surety resides in or to the Superintendent of any
Prison in Maharashtra nearest to the residence of the surety or to
the Superintendent of the Prison where the prisoner is confined.
(3) The Tahsildar or the Superintendent of Prisons, shall be bound
to forward the documents related to the surety to the
Superintendent of the Prison where the prisoner is confined.”
It is evident from Sub-rule (2) and (3) Rule 24 that, it is responsibility
of the concerned Tahsildar to forward the document related to surety to
the Superintendent of the Prison and while doing so he must act in diligent
manner without any arbitrariness and delay. In the present it could be seen
Narwade
cri.wp-122-2026
-5-
that, Respondent No. 3 has acted in most casual and irresponsible manner
due to which furlough leave granted to the present petitioner have expired.
9. Before parting, we find that this Court is coming across several
cases where though the inmates are released on furlough leave, it is
only due to inaction on the part of the concerned authorities like
Respondent No.3 for want of execution of surety bond the period of
furlough leave are getting expired and the inmates are not able to
avail the said furlough leaves. We therefore find that, this is a fit case
where we should mulct the Respondent No.3 with cost.
10. We, thus dispose off this Writ Petition with liberty to the
petitioner as prayed for. We, however, direct Respondent No.3- the
Tehsildar, Sadar Bhojubir to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- with this
Court within a period of four (4) weeks from today for his inaction
which has resulted into depriving the petitioner from availing the
furlough leave. Upon deposit of the above cost the same be utilized
for the Creche/Day Care Centre, Advocates’ Association of Bombay
High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. If the Respondent No.3 fails to
deposit the cost as directed the District Collector, Varanasi, Uttar
Pradesh shall recover the said cost from the Respondent No.3 towards
arrears of land revenue. We also direct by way of reprimand that
Narwade
cri.wp-122-2026
-6-
Respondent No.3 in future shall act diligently in respect of matter
pertaining to execution of surety bond.
11. Writ petition thus stand disposed of in above terms.
[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]
Narwade
Checking your session…