1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.897 OF 2010 Yousf S/o Kasam Sarodiya, Age : 49, Occu.Convict No.6853 R/o Open Central Prisoner at Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad 3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison at Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mrs Bharati B. Gunjal, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 18th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the impugned order, dated 12.8.2010, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for his release on parole on the ground of ailment of his mother. 3. It does not appear that there is any dispute that the mother of the petitioner is ailing and suffering from "I.H.D.". The petitioner has annexed to this petition a recent certificate dated 19.9.2010 issued by the Consultant General & Industrial Physician at Thane. The aforesaid certificate states that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from "Angina Pectoris" with frequent attacks of fainting since last three years, but her problem had increased in the last one year. The Medical Officer also advised specialized investigation which even include major surgical intervention. 4. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected on the basis of the police report, which indicated that the petitioner would be residing in the Dongri area, Mumbra, while his mother would be receiving the treatment at a different place. The respondents have expressed apprehension that in such circumstances the petitioner was likely to abscond. 5. According to us, there is no basis for the apprehension of the respondents. The surety of the petitioner has undertaken that the 3 petitioner would report to the Dongri police station every day. In such circumstances, according to us the apprehension of the respondents would be allayed by securing the presence of the petitioner at the Dongri police station. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for rejecting the application of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole on such terms and conditions which the respondents consider it appropriate. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp897.10