1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal W.P.No. 30/2011 Sitaram Maroti Gode vs. The Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal (Rural) and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. T.A.Mirza, APP for the respondents. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & P.B.VARALE, JJ DATE : 14.3.2011 The petitioner has made a grievance that on every occasion when he applied for parole, the said applications came to be rejected on account of adverse police report. It is noticed that adverse police report is on the ground that one of the witnesses i.e. Subhash Gode stated that the petitioner sent letter to him, wherein he gave threat to kill the witness whenever the petitioner was released. Since reliance was placed by the authorities on the letter received by the witness, this Court directed the authorities to inquire into the matter and to trace out the said letter wherein threats were given. It is the case of witness Subhash Gode that he had received a letter sent by the petitioner giving 2` threats to him. Pursuant to the orders of this Court inquiry was conducted and the report is submitted. The report shows that it is not disclosed as to who has sent the letter. The letter is not in the hand writing of the petitioner. Postal endorsement is faint, so it is not possible to identify from where letter was sent. In the report, it is further mentioned that as the petitioner was in jail at the time when letter was sent to the witness, obviously there would have been a stamp of the jail authorities on the said letter. However, there is no such stamp on the said letter. Thus, we find that there is nothing to show that the petitioner indeed sent the said letter to witness Subhash Gode. Thus, such a letter cannot be taken into consideration by the concerned authority to reject the application of the petitioner for parole. Thereafter, the learned APP submitted that as at that time Ganpati and Durga festivals were to take place it was apprehended that there would be breach to peace if the petitioner was released on furlough, hence also adverse police report was sent. As far as the second ground is concerned, now the festivals are long over. No further cause remains to not consider the application of the petitioner for parole. Moreover, it is noticed that on earlier occasion when the petitioner was released on furlough he has reported back in time to the prison. In view of the above facts, we are inclined 3` to grant parole to the petitioner. Hence, the following order. i) Petitioner be released on parole for a period of 30 days on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one or two surety to make up the said amount. ii) The petitioner to report the Police Station, Padharkawada once in a week. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. The office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Amravati Central Prison, Amravati. JUDGE JUDGE patle 4`