ORAL JUDGMENT S. P. KUKDA Y, J. :- Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 20-11-2003. He is in Central Prison, Aurangabad since then and has undergone four years imprisonment. The petitioner had submitted an application for grant of furlough on 26-9-2005 to the competent authority. On receipt of this application usual procedure was followed. First report from the Superintendent of Police Nanded was absconding and the petitioner is also likely to abscond. Second ground was that the surety is not able to control activities of the petitioner. However thereafter another report was called. In this second report again the Superintendent of Police Nanded observed that the petitioner is addicted he should not be released on furlough. After considering both these adverse reports the competent authority rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough by its order dated 10-12-2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the adverse reports were based on the past activities of the petitioner. The petitioner is in prison for last four years. He was on bail during the course of the trial. During that period no allegations were leveled against the petitioner regarding breach of the conditions of bail. Learned counsel submits that if these facts are taken into consideration it is necessary to discard the adverse reports and direct the competent authority to release the petitioner on furlough. Shri Borade learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to the adverse reports and has opposed the application. 5. We have perused the reply filed by respondents as well as the documents annexed to the reply. The order rejecting the application for furlough is based on the adverse reports submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Nanded. The first adverse report was on the basis that he is addicted to liquor and has an influence over the villagers. In both the reports the common ground raised is that the surety is not in apposition to control the activities of the petitioner. 6. We have considered this matter and have also perused the statements of the witnesses recorded during the enquiry. In both the reports the common ground raised is that the surety is not in apposition to control the activities of the petitioner. 6. We have considered this matter and have also perused the statements of the witnesses recorded during the enquiry. It is pertinent to bear in mind that the petitioner was on bail during the course of trial. During that period he has not committed breach of any of the conditions of the bail bond. After conviction he is in jail for last four years. This fact shows that adverse reports are not based on the proper appreciation of the facts of the present case but refer to the past events. In our opinion the decision for rejection of furlough should not be based merely should apply its mind to the facts of the case and on consideration of all the facts and circumstances should arrive at a proper decision. In the present case this has not been done and mechanically the application is rejected on the basis of the adverse reports. We therefore cannot sustain such an order. 7. In this view of the matter we quash the order for rejection of the furlough dated 10-12-2006 and refer the matter to the competent authority for fresh assessment of the material on record and for passing the appropriate order on the application for grant of furlough submitted by the prisoner. 8. In the result the writ petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute in above terms. 9. Before parting with the judgment we would like to appreciate the assistance rendered by Smt. Chate learned Advocate (amicus curiae) for the petitioner. We quantify Rs. 2,000/-(Rs. Two Thousand only/-) towards her fees. She be paid accordingly. Writ petition allowed.