{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.653 OF 2010 Sudhakar s/o Madhukar Kolhe Prisoner No.C-5820, Age-Major, Occ-Nil R/o At present Central Prison, Harsul Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Aurangabad 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner Officer, (G.A.) Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. N.R.Jamdade, Advocate for the petitioner (Appointed) Mr. D.R.Kale, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 23rd August 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. {2} 2. A communication, sent by the petitioner through jail, has been directed to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. This Court had accordingly appointed Advocate Mr.N.R.Jamdade to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the respondents refusing to release the petitioner on parole. 4. The order impugned in the present petition is in respect of rejection of the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole. It appears that two reasons have been advanced in the aforesaid impugned order. First reason is that in the light of the fact that the petitioner has undergone 7 years imprisonment and the petitioner is likely to threaten the prosecution witnesses on account of his life imprisonment and secondly, the petitioner had not annexed medical certificate in respect of ailment of his mother. According to us, the application of the petitioner, seeking his release on parole, cannot be rejected on the grounds adverted to above, particularly, ground regarding apprehension of the authorities that the petitioner would threaten the prosecution witnesses and is likely to cause some harm to them. It appears that the petitioner had been released on parole and furlough on earlier occasions and the learned APP very candidly admits that there are no reports to indicate that the conduct of the petitioner, {3} after his release, was such as to give rise to this kind of apprehension. In any event, the aforesaid reason cannot be utilized as a ground for rejecting the application for release on parole. In respect of the petitioner not submitting medical certificate, according to us, an opportunity needs to be given to the petitioner for submitting medical certificate in respect of ailment of his mother. 5. We accordingly partly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner to submit medical certificate regarding ailment of his mother, within two weeks from today. On such certificate being submitted by the petitioner, the respondents to decide the application for release of the petitioner on parole, within 6 weeks thereafter, on its own merits, in accordance with law and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.3000/- [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp653-10