1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2095 OF 2011 Radhesham Taterprasad Tathera Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Ms.Indu Varma, Amicus Curiae for petitioner. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATE : 24th August 2011 PC : 1. Heard. Rule. By consent of the parties heard finally. 2. This petition is received through jail. The petitioner has challenged the decision dated 13th August 2010 rejecting his request to release him on parole for a period of thirty days to enable him to look after his ailing mother. The only reason recorded by the appropriate authority is that the Superintendent of Police, Maou has given adverse report. We have perused the report of the Superintendent of Police, Maou. It mentions two points for advising not to release the petitioner on parole. The first is that the mother of the petitioner is presently staying with Dhananjay, one of the three sons. The other son is staying separately. It is not as if the mother is not attended to by any one at all. The second reason stated is that the family of the petitioner has only an ordinary house and no landed property. 2 3. The question is whether two aspects highlighted by the Superintendent of Police, Maou, Uttar Pradesh State can be the sole basis to reject the petitioner's proposal for releasing him on parole. Admittedly, the petitioner is in jail for over six years and has not been released on parole/furlough at any point of time in the past. There is nothing on record before us to indicate that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is not proper. As aforesaid, the only reason which weighed with the appropriate authority to reject the petitioner's proposal was the adverse recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Maou, Uttar Pradesh. The two points noted by the Superintendent of Police, Maou, in our opinion, can be no basis to reject the request of the petitioner for releasing him on parole. The fact that there is one more brother of the petitioner with whom the ailing mother is presently residing, does not mean that the petitioner being one of the son is not entitled to look after her or should not remain with her during her ailment. Besides, the second reason noted by the Superintendent of Police, Maou that the family of the petitioner has only an ordinary house and no landed property, also does not commend to us. The fact that he does not have sufficient property cannot be a disqualification to avail of parole. As long as the appropriate authority can secure the presence of convict by imposing strict conditions as may be advised, the ground that the convict does not have enough properties, cannot be the basis to reject the request. 4. Accordingly, both the reasons stated by the Superintendent of Police, Maou cannot be said to be germane for rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for release on parole. As no other reason is recorded by the appropriate authority, we deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the order of Divisional Commissioner dated 13th August 2010 as also order of the Desk Officer, State Government dated 11th April 3 2011 as both the authorities have glossed over this crucial aspect of the matter. Accordingly, while setting aside the above two orders, we relegate the petitioner before the appropriate authority for reconsideration of his proposal afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. It will be open for the appropriate authority to take into consideration any other adverse ground available from the record while considering the proposal of the petitioner for release on parole afresh. We hope and trust that the appropriate authority shall consider the proposal as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than 30th September 2011 and communicate its decision to the petitioner within the same time. Rule is made absolute in above terms. 5. A copy of this order be forwarded to the petitioner who is in jail for information. 6. The Court express word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the Amicus Curiae for espousing the cause of the petitioner. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)