1wp-1000-10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.1000/2010 Rahul Ulhas Pise vs. The State Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mrs I. M. Koparkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 7th May, 2010. ORDER :- Per A.R.Joshi,J. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. This petition is preferred on behalf of the petitioner, who is presently lodged at Kolhapur Central Prison, undergoing the sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 304 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. As per the submissions advanced before us, during the period from March, 1988 till October, 2009 the petitioner was on bail pending his appeal preferred before this Court against the judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case passed on 1st October, 2009. By said conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer five years imprisonment. On the backdrop of these factual aspects, the order 2wp-1000-10 impugned in the present writ petition is required to be scrutinized. 3. The impugned order is dated 4.3.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune rejecting the application for parole mainly on the ground that, if released, the petitioner may cause harm to his rival party people. Even, another ground is mentioned as to other relatives of the petitioner are available to look after his ailing mother and as such his release is not necessary. 4. On perusal of the record, including certificate dated 19.1.2010, issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison Kolhapur, as to period for which the petitioner was on bail, it appears that the apprehension as to likelihood of breach of peace in case of release of the petitioner on parole, does not appear to be sound and acceptable. Under these circumstances, considering the total period of sentence imposed and considering his release on bail during 1988-2009 and still considering that there is nothing on record to suggest the wrongful conduct of the petitioner during said period, we are of the view that present petition is required to be allowed with the following order. ORDER: (i) Present writ petition is allowed. (ii) Competent Authority to release the petitioner on parole of 15 days after obtaining suitable surety and after complying all other legal necessities and after imposing the conditions on the petitioner of his attendance to the local police station at the place where he would be staying during the period of his parole twice a week. 3wp-1000-10 (iii) This order to be complied within 8 weeks from today and necessary intimation be given to the petitioner through jail authority. (A.R.JOSHI,J) (D.B. BHOSALE,J)