FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.361 OF 2010 Sardar Khan s/o Shah Wali Khan vs The State & Ors. ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the Respondents. 2 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner points out the order impugned in this petition (Exh.C), passed by the Dy. Commissioner (General Admn.), Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. This order records that the present petitioner applied for grant of parole leave on 14th October, 2009. The ground raised was surgery to be performed on the person of wife of the petitioner. Grant of 30 days parole leave was sought for. This prayer made by the petitioner was favourably considered. Thirty days parole leave was granted. This order was passed on 30th December, 2009. The petitioner, thereafter applied for extension of 30 days parole leave. Such an application was made on 11th January, 2010. Entire procedure had been gone into and extension of 30 days parole as sought for was granted by order dated 29th January, 2010. Thereafter, again 30 days extension was requested by the petitioner. The authority called for the report from various authorities in accordance with the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The authority considered the reports and comments of various authorities. The authority recorded finding that total 60 days parole was granted to the present petitioner. That’s the reason why the authority now has rejected extension sought for by the present petitioner. 4 The learned A.P.P. points out that a statement is made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in- reply in respect of grant of parole and extension thereof. It has been pointed out to us by the learned A.P.P. from the report of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Kurla, Mumbai that he has objected for extension of parole to the petitioner. It has been reported by the Dy. Commissioner of Police that wife of the present petitioner has already been operated and there are other relatives to take care of the wife of the petitioner. According to him, extension of parole as such of the petitioner is not necessary. From the affidavit-in-reply, the learned A.P.P. has also pointed out the statement in paragraph 5 that the application for parole was faxed on 11th February, 2010 by the petitioner. In fact, this was for further extension of parole. On query, the learned Counsel for the petitioner (appointed) points out that page 18 Exh.D is the copy of the communication addressed by the Superintendent, Aurangabad Central Jail to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 5th March, 2010. It has been conveyed by this communication that the petitioner has surrendered to the prison on 4th March, 2010. 5 Having given due consideration to the submissions of the parties, in our view, the order impugned cannot be said to be perverse. The petitioner has also surrendered as noticed by us. We do not want to interfere in the order impugned since it being legal and proper. 6 Criminal Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. We make it clear that if in future the petitioner makes an application for parole leave, the same may be considered, in accordance with the provisions of law. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (S.B. DESHMUKH,J) 30.04.2010. kadam/*