1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1016/2009 Arun Nehalaji More, Age : 50 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Nipus Colony, Taluka Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon, At present Central Prison, Aurangabad. ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad 3. Superintendent of Police (Prison), Aurangabad. ...Respondents ........ Shri Suresh R. Pawar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.V. Kurundkar, A.P.P. for Respondents. ..... CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J. & A.V. NIRGUDE, J Date of Judgment : 02/12/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- [PER P.V. HARDAS J] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally, at the stage of admission. 2 2. This communication sent by petitioner through Jail takes exception to the order of the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole in order to attend his ailing daughter. This Court had accordingly appointed Shri Suresh Pawar, learned counsel, to represent the petitioner in this petition. 3. Twin grounds, on which the application of the petitioner for his release on parole came to be rejected, are :- (i) That the petitioner had overstayed by 229 days when he had been earlier released on parole; (ii) The petitioner was likely to commit breach of peace if released on parole and that the certificate enclosed by the petitioner did not disclose any serious ailment entitling release of the petitioner on parole. 4. In respect of the challenge to the aforesaid order, we heard Shri Suresh Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has very ably argued on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid grounds are unsustainable in law as the certificate enclosed by the petitioner discloses that his daughter had fallen from a height and was unconscious. It is further stated that the petitioner had 3 himself surrendered, no doubt belatedly by the period of 229 days. The learned A.P.P. on behalf of the respondents has supported impugned order and has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. It is true that the petitioner had surrendered late by 229 days, and as per the rules, the petitioner has rendered himself ineligible for his release on parole in future. The respondents however, have rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the certificate does not disclose any serious ailment with which the daughter of the petitioner is afflicted. We concur with the respondents that the certificate does not disclose any ailment. All that the certificate discloses is that the daughter of the petitioner was unconscious on account of fall from height. The aforesaid certificate is dated 26-04-2009. However, the certificates have not been appended as to the petition showing the condition of the daughter of the petitioner after 26-04-2009. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, the impugned order can not be faulted with. We however grant liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh after enclosing necessary documents i. e. medical certificates. 6. Accordingly, we see no merit in the petition and petition is 4 therefore, dismissed. Rule stands discharged with liberty to the petitioner of applying afresh after enclosing the necessary documents i. e. medical certificates. We however, quantify fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/-. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J] [P.V. HARDAS, J] tsk/criwp1016.09