Crim.WP 1042/10 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1042/2010 Anna s/o Runjaji Tribhun, age 47 yrs., occu.nil r/o at present Central Jail, Harshul at Aurangabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra. 2] The Superintendent of the Central Jail at Harsul, Aurangabad Dist.Aurangabad. 3] The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... Smt.Sharda P. Chate, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.S. Patil, APP for respondents. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 07.12.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V. Hardas, J.) : Crim.WP 1042/10 - 2 - 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] An application submitted by the petitioner through jail for his release on parole for a period of 30 days came to be rejected by the respondents. The aforesaid impugned order of the respondents dated 27.10.2010 is the subject matter of this petition. We accordingly issue Rule and make it returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have heard this petition finally at this stage. 3] As pointed out by us above, by impugned order dated 27.10.2010, the application submitted by the petitioner for his release on parole came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted a local surety. The petitioner now contends before us that the petitioner is in a position to furnish the surety bonds of his elder brother. Shri K.S. Patil, learned APP, has tendered before us the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated before us that the petitioner, when he had been earlier released on furlough on 6.12.2002, had absconded for a period of three years and two months and was ultimately required to be arrested and produced in the jail on 4.3.2006. It is, therefore, urged before us that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on parole on that ground alone. Obviously, the aforesaid ground is not the ground taken by the respondents for rejecting the application of the petitioner. Crim.WP 1042/10 - 3 - 4] However, in the light of the fact stated above, we are inclined to allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondents for decision afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents for decision afresh in accordance with law. The respondents to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) ndk/cr712104