JUDGMENT : Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Udeshi, learned A.P.P. for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner had applied for grant of furlough leave for 21 days. Respondent No. 1 - Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (East), Nagpur, has rejected the petitioner's application vide impugned order dated 24/04/2019. The same is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. At the outset, undisputedly, as per the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the petitioner is eligible for furlough leave. His application for furlough leave was rejected mainly on the ground of incompetent surety. The proposed surety is mother of the petitioner. 4. The impugned order does not show any valid reason for not accepting the surety. The reason given is that the age of surety is 67 years and, therefore, she may not be able to control the activities of the petitioner while on furlough leave. As per Rule 6 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, family members are eligible to act as surety for the convicts. 5. Admittedly, the proposed surety is residing at her present address since 25 to 30 years. She is the owner of one taxi. She has already filed her affidavit before the concerned authority to act as a surety for the petitioner. Age of 67 years, in our opinion, does not appear to be a hurdle to act as a surety unless there is some serious ailment to the surety. 6. Furthermore, undisputedly, this is his first furlough leave application after conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. As per record, he is convicted for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that he has already undergone imprisonment for two years, eleven months and twenty days. 7. As per record, he is convicted for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that he has already undergone imprisonment for two years, eleven months and twenty days. 7. The object of furlough leave as per Notification dated 16/04/2018 with regard to the amendment to the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, is: (i) to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with the family matters; (ii) to save the inmate from the evil effects of continuous prison life; (iii) to enable the inmate to maintain constructive hope and active interest in the life." 8. The another reason for rejecting his application for furlough leave is possibility of creating law and order situation in the locality. There is nothing in the impugned order for reaching this conclusion. The petitioner is a life convict. He has already undergone around three years of imprisonment. For the above avowed object he is entitled for furlough leave, if he is eligible as per rules. In such circumstances, it is necessary to set aside the impugned order and accordingly, the same is set aside. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 24/04/2019 passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Inspector General of Prison (East) Nagpur, is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled for furlough leave for 21 days on such terms and conditions as the Authority shall deem fit. (iii) The petitioner will not be entitled for furlough leave for next 2 years, if he surrenders late or commits any offence when he is on furlough leave. (iv) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.