1 cri-wp-2073-11.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2073 OF 2011 Smt. Leena Anil Devsthali ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr. D.G. Khamkar for petitioner. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 28, 2011. P.C. We have heard Mr. Khamkar the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, along with her daughter, is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and she made an application for parole leave. It was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and her 2 cri-wp-2073-11.doc appeal against the said order also has been dismissed by the State Government on 4/7/2011. Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, as amended, reads as under:- “19. When a prisoner may be released on parole. – A prisoner will be released on parole for such period as the Competent Authority referred to in rule 18 in its discretion may order, in case of serious illness, or death of any member of the prisoner’s family or of his nearest relatives, or pregnant woman prisoner for delivery (except high security risk prisoner), or for any other sufficient cause”. As per the petitioner her case falls in the last category, namely, “for any other sufficient cause”. Her flat at Dahisar (E), Mumbai is under lock and lying vacant from the date of her arrest and she has not been able to pay the maintenance charges which have accumulated to Rs. 1,00,000/-. She wants to let-out this flat on rent and earn some money. These activities, in our opinion, can be attended to as and when the 3 cri-wp-2073-11.doc petitioner is released on furlough leave. The authorities below, on enquiry, have taken a view and refused to exercise the discretion to grant parole leave to the petitioner. If the discretion has been exercised on reasonable grounds, there is no reason to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and interfere with the impugned orders. We are satisfied that the discretion has been exercised reasonably. Hence the petition must fail and the same is hereby dismissed. We make it clear that the petitioner’s application for furlough leave will be considered on its own merits and without being influenced by this order. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)