07. So far as the ground for rejection of the furlough leave, that the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence is pending, is concerned, same is not tenable. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, filing of an appeal against conviction and sentence is a statutory right of a convict. It has no nexus with grant or rejection of furlough leave. So also, the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Rubina Suleman Memon Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the convict was undergoing sentence for conviction under the provisions of Terrorist and Destructive Activities Act, 1987. The rigors of the notification dated 23.02.2012, more particularly, Sub-Rule 13 of Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 were fully applicable to the petitioner therein. Such is not the case of the present petitioner. The petitioner is not suffering punishment for any act under the provisions of TADA. So far as the last ground, that there is no recommendation of Jail Superintendent, is concerned, same is also not tenable. The leave sanctioning authority can suo motu call recommendation or otherwise on the application made by the petitioner for furlough leave.
