1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.701 OF 2010 Smt. Ranjanabai w/o Kisansing Dumale, Age 44 years, Occ. Household, R/o Shirdi, Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad 3. The Police Commissioner, Aurangabad 4. Police Inspector, CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 6th September, 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ to respondents no.1 to 4 to arrest convict no. 6953 and convict no.6954 and further prays for directing respondents not to release the aforesaid convicts on parole or furlough after their arrest pending the decision of the criminal appeal. 3. According to the petitioner, who is the original complainant, the aforesaid convicts by name Kanwarsing and Sachin were sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeals filed by the aforesaid convicts are pending in this Court. During the pendency of the said appeals, the two convicts have applied for their release on parole, which came to be allowed. Despite the limited duration for which the parole was granted to the aforesaid convicts, the aforesaid convicts have absconded and are not traceable. 4. This Court accordingly issued notice to the respondents and the learned A.P.P. who appears on behalf of the respondents has filed several affidavits including the affidavit of the Joint Secretary, Home Department, 3 Government of Maharashtra. Perusal of the aforesaid affidavits in reply discloses that the respondents had immediately initiated steps for arresting the absconding convicts and have continued their efforts at tracing whereabouts of the said convicts. We are satisfied that the respondents have taken steps for arresting the absconding accused. We are, therefore, satisfied that the respondents have taken steps for arresting the absconding accused. We, therefore, direct the respondents not to relax the efforts which they have taken and to strenuously pursue their efforts for arresting the absconding convicts. We accordingly allow this writ petition in terms of prayer clause (B) to the petition. We, however, dismiss this petition in respect of prayer clause (C) to the petition. According to us, it would be for the respondents to decide each application on merits as and when presented by the applicants, if they are arrested and if such application for release either on parole or furlough is made in future. 5. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) to the petition. This petition stands dismissed in respect of prayer clause (C) to the petition with no order as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp701.10