1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.961 OF 2010 Nana Keshav Lagad, Convict No.4473, Open Jail, Paithan ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT Mr K.U.More, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Mr B.V.Wagh, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 9th December, 2010 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. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail has been registered as Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Advocate Mr.K.U.More, learned Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition. The limited grievance of the petitioner is challenge to the order dated 2.9.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for his release on parole. 3. By virtue of the impugned order, parole came to be declined to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the surety as per the rules. The petitioner, it 2 appears had applied for parole on the ground that his mother was suffering from Hypertension with P.I.D. The certificate of the Medical Officer which is annexed by the respondent at Exh.R-1 indicates that the Medical Officer had opined that the mother of the petitioner requires further management. The aforesaid certificate does not disclose the gravity of the illness with which mother of the petitioner is said to be suffering. Mr More, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to apply afresh by enclosing appropriate certificate from the Medical Officer. We see no reason to deny such a request. 4. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and the impugned order is quashed and set aside and liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply afresh to the competent authorities. In the event the petitioner applies afresh, the authorities to decide the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in no case later than six weeks from the date of submission of the application. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. 6. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One thousand five hundred). ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J. ) (vvr/961.10criwp) 3