1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.536 OF 2010 JAGDISH JAYANARAYAN JAISWAL V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ... Smt. A.S.Mantri, Advocate (amicus curiae) for petitioner and Shri N.R.Shaikh APP for respondent ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE,JJ. Dated : 15.7.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner seeks extension of parole by further thirty days. 4. On notice, affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. In paragraph No.4 of the said reply, it has been contended that initially petitioner had requested for grant of parole on the ground of illness of his wife. After conducting requisite enquiry, parole was granted to him for thirty days from 23.3.2010 to 21.4.2010. After enjoying this parole leave, the petitioner was supposed to surrender 2 on/or before 22.4.2010 and accordingly, he surrendered before the prison authorities on 22.4.2010. Meanwhile, petitioner sought extension of parole by thirty days on the ground of serious physical condition of his wife by his application dt. 29.3.2010. Request made by the petitioner was considered. Medical certificate produced on record by the petitioner was also considered by the authority concerned. Wife of the petitioner was advised two month's rest and further check up for investigation and surgery. In paragraph No.8 of the affidavit, it has been stated that since about eleven months prior to the issuance of certificate, the petitioner claimed that his wife is suffering from abdominal pains, however, the certificate relied upon by the petitioner does not reflect medical gravity or urgency. Lack of seriousness in the alleged ailment weighed with the authority while rejecting the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out copy of the medical certificate which is on record at Exhibit R/4. This certificate has been issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Mahur, District Nanded on 26.3.2010. Two months' rest and follow check up has been advised for further investigation and surgery by the Medical officer. Having considered the ground of earlier leave in favour of the petitioner, date of application made by the petitioner and order passed by the authority concerned, in our view, Rule 25 has been properly considered by the authority concerned. However, having considered the nature of illness of wife, in our view, liberty can be granted in favour of the 3 petitioner to apply afresh if circumstances necessitates. 6. In the result, writ petition stands dismissed with liberty in favour of the petitioner to apply afresh for parole, if circumstances necessitates. In that situation, the authorities concern shall consider and decide the application of the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law. Rule stands discharged. 7. We quantify Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only/-) towards fees and expenses, to be paid to the learned Advocate (amicus curiae) for the petitioner. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl