JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. Heard both sides. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally. 3. The petitioner preferred an application for furlough on 30.5.2016. The said application was rejected by order dated 20.12.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 16.2.2017, hence, this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough was that there was danger to the life of the complainant and witnesses and the police report is adverse. The third reason is that the petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of his life and the last reason is that he may not report back to the prison if he is released on furlough. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of Nagpur Bench of this Court in the case of Miyakhan Bhurekhan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 2233. In the said case, the application of the petitioner therein was rejected on the ground that there is possibility of petitioner taking revenge on the prosecution witnesses. In the said case, it was observed by the Court that there was no material available for the competent authority to come to this conclusion and no material was pointed out to Court. In such case, the petitioner therein was directed to be released on furlough. 6. Thereafter, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Nagpur Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kisan Kadse v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 789 . Reliance was placed on paragraph 7 thereof. In the said case, it was observed that the authority is expected to apply their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further observed that the order demonstrated total non-application of mind. It was further observed that mere observations in the police report that there is likelihood of breach of peace if the prisoner is released is not enough as furlough leave should not be the formal expression only to deprive the prisoner from availing furlough leave. The police authorities should be in a position to substantiate their opinion and there was no material to substantiate this opinion. The police authorities should be in a position to substantiate their opinion and there was no material to substantiate this opinion. It was in these circumstances furlough came to be granted. 7. Lastly, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision of the Nagpur Bench of this Court in the case of Sarfuddin Aminuddin v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 481 . Reliance was placed on paragraph 7 thereof. In the said case, furlough was rejected on the ground of adverse police report. The Court observed that it is not known as to what type of enquiry has been conducted to arrive at the conclusion that there was possibility of breach of peace and tranquility. It is also not known as to whether the statements of witnesses were recorded in that context. Observing thus: furlough came to be granted to the petitioner therein. 8. As far as the present case is concerned, the learned A.P.P. has pointed out that the police report is based on the case in which the petitioner is involved. The facts of the case are that on 20.10.2011 PW 1 who is a young girl, along with her friends including deceased Keenan and deceased Ruben went to a restaurant in Amboli to have dinner. After they had dinner, PW 1 along with her three friends who were girls, went to the wash room and four boys who were with them went to Pan shop. When PW 1 and the other girls came out of the restaurant, the petitioner who was wearing white Pathani dress, called her by making noise "shuk shuk". When she looked at that person, he said "kya mast maal hai. Isko aaj rat ko uthake le ke jayenge." PW 1 ignored the petitioner. Till that time, other girls came near her. Then the petitioner pressed her left breast. PW 1 screamed and pushed aside his hand. The other accused who were with the petitioner, started laughing. Then accused no.2 came and touched buttock of PW 1 and said "aaj hamara rat ka asra ho gaya" and he tried to pull her from behind. She screamed and pushed him away and ran towards her friends i.e. four boys and told them what had happened. The other accused who were with the petitioner, started laughing. Then accused no.2 came and touched buttock of PW 1 and said "aaj hamara rat ka asra ho gaya" and he tried to pull her from behind. She screamed and pushed him away and ran towards her friends i.e. four boys and told them what had happened. Then Keenan (deceased) came forward and he told all these four accused including the petitioner that don't you have mother or sister in your home, you are openly harassing girls, you should be ashamed. Then the petitioner along with other accused started abusing Keenan. Then one of the other boys i.e. Avinash from the group of PW 1 came forward and tried to talk to the petitioner and co-accused. However, the petitioner started abusing Avinash in filthy language. Then co-accused no.2 told Avinash that if you have courage you wait there, I will come and kill you. At that time, the petitioner told him that he would not leave them and he would come back and show them. Then the petitioner and other accused went away. After some time, four accused persons including the petitioner came running towards Keenan and his group. The petitioner was carrying big knife and accused no.2 was also carrying a knife. The other two accused were also armed with weapons. On seeing them, PW 1, and other girls who were with her, ran towards the steps of the restaurant and stood there. They were very frightened. Then the petitioner started stabbing Keenan in the stomach again and again. Keenan fell down on the footpath and started bleeding. The co-accused no.2 stabbed Ruben in his stomach. Ruben fell on the foot-path. The other accused persons then attacked the other two boys i.e. Benjamin and Avinash. They screamed and shouted for help but nobody came forward. Thereafter the petitioner and the other accused persons ran away. 9. One of the grounds for rejecting the application of the petitioner for furlough is that there is danger to the life of the witnesses. It is seen that two of the witnesses are Panwala and security guard who work in or near the restaurant where PW 1, deceased and others in their group went to have dinner. Thus, it is seen that these two witnesses are very much from the same area where the petitioner is residing. It is seen that two of the witnesses are Panwala and security guard who work in or near the restaurant where PW 1, deceased and others in their group went to have dinner. Thus, it is seen that these two witnesses are very much from the same area where the petitioner is residing. Moreover, the facts relating to the case in which the petitioner is involved, show that the petitioner has tendency of taking revenge which can be seen from the fact that when the deceased tried to question him regarding the teasing of PW 1, the petitioner along with other accused came back with deadly weapons and assaulted the deceased persons. In fact, on account of the assault two persons lost their lives. Thus, we find much merit in the order of rejection which shows that there will be danger to the life of the complainant and witnesses. Looking to the brazen act of molestation on the part of the petitioner of PW 1 who is a young girl and other facts of this case, we find much merit in the order of rejection and order dismissing the appeal on the ground that there would be danger to the life of witnesses. Looking to all these facts, we find that in the present case there is sufficient material available before the authorities to reach the above said conclusion that there would be danger to the life of witnesses if the petitioner is released on furlough. It cannot be said that there is no material to substantiate the police report. The act of the petitioner shows that he is the kind of person who is most likely to take revenge if he is released on furlough. Thus, as stated earlier, we find that there is sufficient material before the authorities to reach the conclusion that there would be danger to the life of the complainant and witnesses, if the petitioner is released, hence, we do not find it necessary to go into the other grounds of rejection. 10. In view of the above, we are not inclined to grant furlough, hence, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.