- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P.NO.817 OF 2006 Dastagir @ Dastu Karmat Khan ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.Naveen Chomal, Advocate for Petitioner Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for State .... CORAM: D.G.DESHPANDE AND CORAM: D.G.DESHPANDE AND CORAM: D.G.DESHPANDE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : APRIL 25,2006 DATE : APRIL 25,2006 DATE : APRIL 25,2006 ORAL ORDER (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.): ORAL ORDER (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.): ORAL ORDER (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.): 1. Leave to amend the word "furlough" in the petition as "parole" is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Heard Mr.Chomal, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner came to be released on parole on the ground of illness of his mother from 9.3.2006 to 9.4.2006. The petitioner is now seeking - 2 - extension of parole on the ground that his mother is still ailing. We have perused the certificate annexed by the petitioner. We find that illness suffered by the mother of the petitioner is not very serious, however, looking to her age on humanitarian grounds, we are inclined to extend the period of parole for another period of thirty days from 9.4.2006. 3. The period of parole is extended for a period of thirty days from 9.4.2006. It is made clear that no further extension of parole would be granted under any circumstances to the petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner also states on instructions that no further extension of parole would be sought by the petitioner under any circumstances. 4. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Petition is disposed of. [D.G.DESHPANDE, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]