Petitioner is good while he is in jail. It is further submitted that the mother of
the Petitioner is 70 years of old lady and is ill and infirm, and therefore, she is
not in a condition to visit her son in prison. She further submitted that if the
Petitioner is released on furlough he will have opportunity to meet his mother
and sister, and maintain a relationship with them, which facilitates the process
of reformation and socialization, however, the Respondents/Authorities have
failed to consider this fact while passing the impugned orders. The learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioner, inviting our attention to the applications
filed by the Petitioner to the Respondents/Authorities, and the impugned
orders passed by them, submitted that though the Petitioner applied for his
release on furlough in July 2019, the Respondent No.3 rejected the application
for furlough filed by the Petitioner after about 9 months later i.e. on
01/04/2020, and the appeal filed against the said rejection, came to be
dismissed by Respondent No.2 about 3 months later i.e. on 06/10/2020. She
therefore submitted that the process of rejection of the application and appeal
came to be completed more than one year later for no fault on his part. She
also submitted as per Notification PAR 1007/Case 327/PRS3 dated
01/08/2007, the application for furlough or parole is required to be decided
within 45 days from the date of its filing. She therefore submitted that the
Respondents Authorities violated this Schedule and prevented the Petitioner
from being released on furlough for the years 2019 and 2020. It is submitted
that the complete copy of the report of Rajgad police station, on the basis of
