Cri.Writ Petition No.1048/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1048 OF 2010 Shaikh Sahebmiya Shaikh Dadamiya, Age years, Occu.Nil, Open Jail, Paithan, Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Ms Priyal D.Savant, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner Mr K.S.Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 21st December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail complaining therein the rejection of his application seeking his release on parole is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. The aforesaid communication was registered as Criminal Writ Petition and we had accordingly appointed Advocate Ms Priyal D. Savant as a Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. Cri.Writ Petition No.1048/2010 2 3. The ground stated by the respondents for rejecting the application of the petitioner for his release on parole is that in the event the petitioner is released on parole, the petitioner was likely to threaten or cause harm to the witnesses, who had been examined against the petitioner in the trial. The second ground is that on earlier occasions the petitioner, who had been released either on parole or on furlough had reported late and, therefore, the petitioner was disentitled from seeking his release on parole. 4. The aforesaid two grounds are reiterated in the affidavit-in- reply filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has made available to us a copy of the fax received by him from the authorities, which is taken on record and marked “A” for the purposes of identification. It is stated that the petitioner, who had been released either on parole or on furlough right from 2002 till 2009 has always reported late. 5. It is true that under the Rules, a prisoner can be dealt with strictly in the event the prisoner reports late i.e. late in surrendering. In the present case the petitioner had reported late on each and every occasion when the petitioner had been released either on parole or on furlough. The authorities, however, have condoned the lapse on the part of the petitioner and have entertained and decided his applications for his release either on parole or on furlough, subsequently. If that be the case, we find it inexplicable that on this occasion the respondents found that the petitioner was not entitled to be released on parole on the ground that the petitioner had reported late on earlier occasions. The petitioner has claimed that his wife is suffering from Psychosis and dysfunctional uterine bleeding and requires to Cri.Writ Petition No.1048/2010 3 undergo hysterectomy surgery. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us the application of the petitioner ought to have been allowed in the peculiar facts of the present case. 6. We accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the authorities to release the petitioner on parole on such terms and conditions, which the authorities may think fit. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. 8. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One thousand five hundred). ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/1048.10criwp) Cri.Writ Petition No.1048/2010 4