1 Cri. W.P. 1015.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2009 Shri Kailas Harichandra Ingale Age Major Occup. Nil, R/o Loni Budruk,Ta.Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. ... Petitioner V E R S U S The Superintendent, Central Prison,Harsool, Auragabad. (Through State Copy to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court at Aurangabad ) ... Respondent ... Ms. Vinaya Muley, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, A.P.P. for respondent-State. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ DATE : 26th NOVEMBER, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : P.V. HARDAS, J.): 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 Cri. W.P. 1015.2009 2] A letter sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. Accordingly, when this petition came before us for admission, we had appointed Ms. Vinaya Muley, learned counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3] The limited grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though the order accepting his release on parole has been passed, yet he has not been released, as he could not furnish the solvent surety for Rs.10,000/-. The reason which is ascribed by the petitioner for his inability to submit the surety is that the entire family of the petitioner stands convicted and no member of his family is available who can accept the surety for release on the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner contends that similar orders of release on parole by accepting cash surety had been passed by this Court in respect of father and uncle of the petitioner, who are also undergoing sentence of imprisonment alongwith the present petitioner. 3 Cri. W.P. 1015.2009 4] The learned A.P.P. has filed affidavit-in- reply. In the reply affidavit it is stated that the rules do not permit to release the prisoner on parole on acceptance of cash security in lieu of the solvent surety. 5] Ms. Vinaya Muley, learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner, who has ably argued this petition on behalf of petitioner, has urged before us that similar challenge was raised in Criminal Writ Petition No. 461 of 2008 at the behest of the father of the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 28th August,2008 had allowed the petition and had directed to release the father of the petitioner on acceptance of cash security of Rs.10,000/- instead of the surety. Further, the Division Bench also passed a similar order in Criminal Writ Petition No. 517 of 2009, dated 23rd July, 2009 in respect of uncle of the petitioner. In that petition also the Division Bench of this Court directed the release the petitioner therein 4 Cri. W.P. 1015.2009 on acceptance of cash security by adjusting the amount which was lying in the account of the petitioners with Jail Authority. 6] In the light of the fact that the petitioner alongwith his close relatives is undergoing sentence of imprisonment and no other relative is available for standing as surety for the release of the petitioner, according to us, the Petition deserves to be allowed. In the peculiar facts of this petition we are allowing this petition by directing the respondent to release the petitioner pursuant to the order of sanctioning of his release on parole on acceptance of cash security of Rs.10,000/- by adjusting Rs.10,000/- which is lying in the account of the petitioner with the Jail Authority. We make it clear that, in the event, the petitioner does not comply with the conditions imposed by the respondent while releasing the petitioner, the amount of Rs.10,000/- would stand forfeited. Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. 5 Cri. W.P. 1015.2009 7] We, however, quantify the fees payable to Ms. Vinaya Muley, learned counsel appointed for the petitioner at Rs.3000/- (Rs. Three Thousand). ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) MTK.