appears to be vague as no specific instances have been pointed out on behalf of the State. The subsequent ground, that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence is pending before this Court, is also untenable. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, filing of 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, decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Rubina Suleman Memon (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand because the convict in the said case was undergoing sentence for conviction under the provisions of the Terrorist and Destructive Activities Act, 1987, and 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 petitioner. The petitioner is not suffering punishment for any act under the provisions of TADA. The last ground, that there is no recommendation of Jail Superintendent, is also not tenable. The leave sanctioning authority can suo motu call remarks of recommendation or otherwise from the Jail Superintendent.
