1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1034 OF 2009 Shri. Shaikh Taslam Shaikh Rahim, R/o. District Prison, Dhule. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondents. Smt. Mantri h/f. Shri. A.S. Mantri, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner. Shri. K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 14th December, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner by this petition takes exception to the order of the respondent, rejecting his application for his release on parole. A letter in this behalf addressed to this Court came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly, we have appointed Mr. A.S. Mantri as a counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. It is stated that the petitioner, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment of 2 the Sessions Judge, Beed dated 8.5.2008 in Sessions Case No. 28/2008, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 180/2008 in this Court, questioning the correctness of his conviction and sentence. Perusal of the judgment of the trial court from the record and proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 180/2008, it transpires that the petitioner was on bail during the trial. The date of incident which is alleged by the prosecution is 19.11.2007. Be that as it may. The application of the applicant seeking his release on parole came to be rejected on the grounds (i) that there was no guarantee of the petitioner that he would surrender on the expiry of his parole leave and (ii) the petitioner was likely to threaten the family members of deceased as the petitioner and the accused reside in the same lane. As pointed out by the learned counsel, the record and proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 180/2008 discloses that the petitioner was on bail during the trial. In fact, the record also discloses that the petitioner had not taken any disadvantage of the liberty granted by this Court in releasing him on bail by threatening either the prosecution witnesses or the members of the family of the deceased. In that light of the matter therefore, according to us, the police officer need to examine afresh the apprehension expressed by them in their report that the petitioner was likely to threaten the family members of the deceased and he would not surrender on expiry of his parole leave. 4. In that light of the matter therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to 3 conduct an enquiry afresh keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner had been released on bail during the trial. 5. Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to Advocate Shri. A.S. Mantri at Rs. 2,000/-. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.] ssc/criwp1034.09