1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 342 OF 2010 *** Rajesh S/o Kishanrao Jondhale Versus The State of Maharashtra *** Smt. Manjusha Jagtap, Advocate for the Petitioner (appointed). Mr. N. R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for the Respondent. *** 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, made returnable, heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The present petitioner/ prisoner is undergoing conviction for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had applied for grant of parole leave. Ground raised by the petitioner is illness of his father. According to the petitioner, his father is suffering from heart disease and has already undergone surgery. This application, filed by the petitioner, has been rejected by the Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner took us to the order passed by the Respondents Annexure-D. It reveals from this order that the father of the Petitioner factually is suffering from heart ailment, however, according to the Respondents, such ailment is not serious in nature. On this ground, 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. prayer made by the petitioner for grant of parole leave is rejected. 4. Learned A.P.P. points out affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State. Said affidavit in reply is sworn in by one Nath S/o Shankar Pardhi, Tahsildar in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. Action of the Respondents, rejecting parole leave, sought for by the Applicant, has been supported by the affiant in this affidavit in reply. Apart from this, learned A.P.P. has also made available compilation of two documents. It is marked by letter "X" collectively for identification purpose and taken on record. From this compilation, learned A.P.P. points out factual position in relation to grant of parole leave in favour of the present petitioner in the past. Contention is raised that earlier from time to time parole leave was granted, however, the present petitioner has over-stayed and returned to jail beyond the period of permissible parole leave. These are around four instances. We have seen the range of alleged over-staying of the petitioner from 2 days to 40 days. Copy of the medical certificate issued by the medical officer Shri Guru Gobind Singji Memorial Hospital, 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Nanded is also part of this compilation, marked by letter5 "X". From this certificate, learned A.P.P. points out that the ailment of father of the petitioner is shown as ischemic heart disease. No surgery in immediate future is suggested or indicated. According to the learned A.P.P. seriousness of the illness also has been taken into account by the authorities concerned justifiably and application has been rejected. 5. Learned counsel appointed for the Petitioner points out parole and furlough leave rules. In case of over-stay in accordance with these rules, prisoner/ petitioner has to suffer the consequences. Ailment of the father of the petitioner is beyond dispute even on behalf of the Respondents. In our view, case for grant of parole leave is established, however, we are not laying down calendar for the purpose. 6. Writ petition is partly allowed. Order impugned is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to pass appropriate order regarding grant of parole leave and petitioner may be released. We hereby direct the petitioner to return to jail after expiry of the parole leave granted by the 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. authorities concerned. 7. Writ petition accord8ingly is allowed partly and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. 8. We quantify professional fees of learned counsel appointed for the Petitioner at Rs. 2,500/-. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:04/05/2010. ans/342