FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.343 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ We heard learned Counsel Ms. Purnapatre and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 The Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the writ petition. The nature of amendment is pertaining to relief i.e. challenge to the order dated 29th January, 2010. 3 Having heard learned A.P.P. Mr. Godbharle, we have permitted the amendment, more specifically, adding of prayer clause (BB) in the petition. Amendment be carried out during the course of the day. 4 The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and he is undergoing the punishment of imprisonment for life. Application has been made by the present petitioner for grant of parole leave. The ground raised by the petitioner is in respect of ailment of his wife. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Godbharle has filed affidavit-in-reply. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State has detailed some circumstances pointing out earlier prayers made by the petitioner which were considered by the authorities. From that, it appears that earlier the prayers made by the petitioner were considered favourably and the petitioner was released on parole. According to the learned A.P.P., every time the petitioner surrendered beyond the permissible period. In other words, the petitioner overstayed. The A.P.P. points out the instance of overstaying by around 34 days at one time. One another instance was pointed out where there the petitioner overstayed by two days. The A.P.P. points out adverse police report submitted to the learned Divisional Commissioner, copy of which is annexed at Exh.R-3, which is under signature of the Superintendent of Police, Latur. 5 Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, in our view this petition can be allowed by granting parole leave to the present petitioner. However, we are not laying out calender for it. 6 The order impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside. The request of the present petitioner for grant of parole leave is granted. We direct the authorities to pass appropriate order and if they think it proper to impose conditions, they may do so, in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to return back to prison as may be ordered by the respondents. Writ petition is allowed in above terms. We quantify Rs.2000/- towards fees to be paid to the learned Counsel Ms. Monica Purnapatre (appointed) for the petitioner. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (S.B. DESHMUKH,J) 30.04.2010. kadam/*