1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 123 OF 2010 KUNDAN RAMBHAU BHANWALKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Shri K.U.More, Advocate (amicus curiae) for the petitioner and Shri N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE,JJ. Dated : 22.4.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks parole leave on the ground of illness of his father who needs to undergo a surgery. According to the petitioner, there is no adult member in the family of the petitioner to take care of his ailing father. His prayer was rejected by the respondent. 4. During pendency of this petition, on behalf of the petitioner, a medical certificate dt. 9.10.2009 (Exhibit “B”) was furnished to the respondent, which was issued by Dr. S.V.Yelapure. Considering the same, 2 request of the petitioner was rejected vide order dt. 17.12.2009. Respondent took a view that father of the petitioner is an out-door patient, he does not require any surgery and that the nature of the ailment is trivial. Copy of the said order is on record at Exhibit “C”. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out the report of the Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad dt. 31.12.2008, which is in favour of the petitioner Copy of the medical certificate dt. 23.3.2010 (Exhibit “D”) is also placed on record and was also furnished to the authority concerned. This certificate has been issued by Dr. S.V.Yelapure, necessitating surgery on the father of the petitioner. 6. Learned APP points out the affidavit-in-reply duly sworn in by Shri Natha Paradhi, Tahsildar (GAD), office of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. We have seen the affidavit opposing the grant of parole leave to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that his father requires surgery is not seriously disputed. In paragraph No.14 of the reply, it has been stated that on receipt of the medical certificate dt. 23.3.2010, in view of the procedure prescribed, notice needs to be given and enquiry needs to be conducted so also fresh report from Superintendent of Police concerned needs to be called for in token of verification. 7. Two medical certificates, issued by the same Doctor have been considered by us. Report of the Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad is also on record. We have noted the date of report i.e. 27.1.2008. In our view, 3 parole needs to be granted in favour of the petitioner. However, we are not in favour of fixing any schedule. Parole leave, indisputably, can not be granted beyond thirty days. We are leaving it for the respondent to pass appropriate order granting parole leave, on due compliances by the petitioner. 8. In the result, Writ Petition is partly allowed. Impugned order is quashed and set aside. We direct the respondent to pass appropriate order for granting appropriate parole leave to the petitioner with a schedule and on due compliances by the petitioner. Rule made partly absolutely accordingly, in above terms. No order as to costs. 9. We quantify Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only/-) towards the professional fees and expenses to be paid to learned counsel (amicus curiae) for the petitioner. 10. Registrar (J) shall make available copy of this order to the petitioner through the Superintendent of Prison concerned, at the earliest possible. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl