1 wp955.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.955 OF 2011 Khanna Singh Ajitsingh Kalayani ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. Arfan Sait, advocate appointed for petitioner. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for State. CORAM:- P.V.HARDAS AND M.N.GILANI, JJ DATED:- MAY 5, 2011 P.C. 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. The limited challenge raised in this Petition is to the order of the Respondent dated. 3/3/2011 rejecting the application submitted by the Petitioner for his release on parole. The reason ascribed by the Respondent was that the surety named by the Petitioner was not willing to stand as 2 wp955.11 surety. In this Petition before us, an affidavit has been filed dated 18th March, 2011 i.e. after passing of the impugned order, by the surety indicating his willingness to stand as surety. 3 Since the application of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the surety was not willing to stand as surety and now that the surety has expressed his willingness to stand as surety for Petitioner, according to us, it would be appropriate if the application of the Petitioner is decided afresh in accordance with law by the authorities. 4 In that light of the matter, therefore, this Petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities for deciding the application of the Petitioner afresh in accordance with law, preferably within 3 weeks from today. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. 5 Copy of this order be forwarded to the Petitioner who is convict, undergoing his sentence in jail. (M.N.GILANI, J) (P.V.HARDAS, J)