07. So far as the ground, that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, is concerned, same is not tenable. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, filing of appeal against conviction and sentence is a statutory right of the convict. It has no nexus with grant or rejection of furlough leave. The next ground, that the petitioner reported late when earlier released on parole on two occasions, is also untenable. On that count, separate punishment was awarded to the petitioner by the prison authorities. Similarly, ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Rubina Suleman Memon (supra) is not applicable to the present case. In the said case, the convict was undergoing sentence for conviction under 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 present petitioner. The last ground, that there is no recommendation of Jail Superintendent, is also unsustainable. The leave sanctioning authority can suo motu call remarks regarding recommendation or otherwise from the Jail Superintendent.
