FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.558 OF 2010 Smt. Vatsalabai Laxmanrao Biradar v/s State of Maharashtra. ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and taken up for hearing. 2 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3 The petitioner – prisoner challenges the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, (GAD), Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad (Exh.D) dated 4th May, 2010. The woman petitioner – prisoner requested for grant of parole leave on the ground of illness of her mother. This application was inquired into and report was called for from the officer concerned. After considering the report, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected by order dated 4th May, 2010, which is impugned in this petition. 4 It appears from the order impugned that the ground raised by the petitioner did not impress the authorities. The medical certificate made available by the petitioner, as recorded by the authorities, showed the illness of the mother of the petitioner as “COPD with Anaemia with cervical spondylosis. The mother of the petitioner was being treated as outdoor patient. In substance, she was not admitted in the Hospital. Medical Certificate certifies rest to the patient. No surgery is recommended or scheduled. Illness of the mother of the petitioner is not serious enough to consider her request to grant parole leave. With these reasons, the application of the petitioner – prisoner has been rejected. 5 The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out a statement made in paragraph 3 of the petition that mother of the petitioner is 98 years old and counting her last days. She needs mental and moral support of the petitioner. It is also stated that except the petitioner, no other relative is available to take care of the ailing mother of the petitioner. 6 The learned A.P.P. points out paragraphs 4,5 and 6 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Govind Phulsing Chavan, working as Tahsildar (GAD), in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. In para 5, reference is made to the Medical Certificate, which discloses that mother of the petitioner is not indoor patient. In para 6 statement is made that earlier the petitioner was released on furlough leave on three occasions and on parole leave on two occasions. Tabular information annexed at Exh.R-1 pertaining to parole and furlough leave has been made available. Rejection order passed by the respondent has been supported in this affidavit-in-reply. We have seen the report of Superintendent of Police, Latur annexed with the petition. Statement is made in the report that earlier 8-10 times such parole / furlough leave was granted and has been enjoyed by the petitioner and on expiration of such leave, she had surrendered. There is no breach of peace at the instance of the petitioner – prisoner during the period of parole / furlough leave granted by the authorities. In other words, no objection has been given by the Superintendent of Police, Latur for grant of parole leave. 7 We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the parties and considered the material placed on record. The mother of the petitioner is 98 years old, which is not seriously disputed on behalf of the respondents. On the contrary, report of the S.P., Latur supports the contention of the petitioner for grant of parole leave. In our view, order impugned needs to be quashed and set aside in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 8 In this view of the matter, writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside. Parole leave is granted to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order, in accordance with the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, specifying the period, terms and conditions of parole leave. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs. We quantify Rs.2000/- towards fees and expenses payable to the learned Counsel (appointed) for the petitioner. The Registrar (Judicial) to communicate this order to the Jail authorities and the petitioner on or before 23rd July, 2010 by fastest mode of communication. The learned A.P.P. shall also communicate this order to the concerned authorities. Authentic copy of the order is permitted to the parties. The authority concerned shall pass appropriate order on or before 30th July, 2010. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (S.B. DESHMUKH,J) 19.07.2010. kadam/*