-(1)- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1000 OF 2007 [Dnyanoba Sakharam Vikhe. Vs. State.] --------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, office : Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram, : appearances, Court’s : orders or directions : and Registrar’s orders : ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs.Sonia Miskin, Adv. appointed for the Petitioner. Mrs.U.V.Kejariwal, APP, for the State. CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 21, 2007. DATED : SEPTEMBER 21, 2007. DATED : SEPTEMBER 21, 2007. 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 had preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his son. The said application for parole came to be -(2)- rejected on the ground that the surety proposed by the petitioner i.e. one Pralhad Vithalarao Vikhe was not willing to stand as surety for the petitioner. Hence, the application for parole came to be rejected. 3. The learned APP, on instructions, states that if the petitioner produces suitable surety, his application for parole would be reconsidered. 4. In view of the above statement, the Petition is disposed of with liberty to move a fresh application for parole before the concerned authority. [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]