1 cr-wp-805-11 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 805 OF 2011 Girish Vasant Kolhe C/7382 ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr. K.M.Mhatre Advocate appointed for the petitioner Ms. S.V.Gajare A.P.P. for the Respondent-State .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND M.N.GILANI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 19, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER P.V.HARDAS, J.] : 1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order of the respondents rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner seeking his release on parole. The only reason which is ascribed by the respondents, for rejecting the application of the petitioner is that in the event the petitioner is released on parole, the petitioner was likely to commit breach of peace and was also likely to 2 cr-wp-805-11 threaten the prosecution witnesses/complainant. It appears that aforesaid report is based on the police report that the petitioner was likely to threaten the prosecution witnesses/complainant. 3 Apart from mere ipse dixit of the police officers that petitioner if released on parole was likely to threaten the prosecution witnesses, there is no material at least none which has been produced before us in order to constitute some form of objective material. In any event, respondents have not alleged that the petitioner during the trial had either threatened prosecution witnesses or had attempted to harm to them. In such circumstances therefore there is hardly any basis for the apprehension expressed by the respondents. The petitioner therefore in our opinion, was entitled to be released on parole. 4 Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole for such term and on such conditions which the respondents consider fit and proper. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ M.N.GILANI, J. ] [ P.V.HARDAS, J. ]