-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRI. APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.184 OF 2008 Datta Khandu Pandhare ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr.Sachin P.Thorat Advocate (appointed)for Petitioner Mr.A.R.Patil APP for Respondent .... CORAM: S.B.MHASE AND CORAM: S.B.MHASE AND CORAM: S.B.MHASE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : MARCH 14, 2008 DATE : MARCH 14, 2008 DATE : MARCH 14, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate appointed for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioner has prayed for parole. The Petitioner has earlier preferred application for parole on the ground of illness of his wife. The case of the Petitioner is that his wife is to be operated for appendix and hence, he be released on parole. 3. The application preferred by the Petitioner for parole came to be rejected on two grounds. The first ground is that a report was called for by the Divisional Commissioner Pune from the Additional Superintendent of Police, Sangli. The Additional -2- Superintendent of Police submitted report that there is threat and danger to the life of the relatives of the deceased as well as to the witnesses in the case. The second ground is that when the Petitioner was earlier granted temporary bail on 20th August, 2002 for a period of 15 days, the Petitioner did not surrender before the Jail authority at the end of the said period. The Petitioner absconded and he had to be traced by the police and he was arrested and brought back to Jail. The learned APP stated that when the Petitioner was released on temporary bail, he was not traceable for a period of 886 days. It is on the basis of these two grounds that the application of the Petitioner for parole came to be rejected. Looking to the reasons for rejecting the application for parole preferred by the Petitioner, we do not find any fault with the authorities for rejecting the application for parole. No interference is called for. Hence, Writ Petition is rejected. 4. We quantify the fees of appointed advocate Shri.Sachin P.Thorat at Rs.500/- [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.]