1 Criminal Writ Petition No.466 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.466 OF 2011 Mukesh S/o.Mohanji Mehta PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr.N.G.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner (Appointed) Mr.S.K.Tambe, learned A.P.P. for respondent State (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 12/07/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition, through jail, takes exception to the order passed by the respondents, dated 04/05/2011, rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole on the ground of ailment of his wife. 3. The petitioner had applied for his release on parole on the ground that his wife was suffering from Menorrhagia and was advised 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.466 of 2011 hysterectomy operation by the Medical Officer. The petitioner had also annexed a certificate in that behalf. A report was called for from the concerned Police Station and the Supdt. of Police expressed an opinion that the petitioner was likely to abscond in the event he was released on parole. Thus the authorities rejected the application of the petitioner on the twin grounds that in the event of release, the petitioner was likely to abscond and the ailment with which the wife of the petitioner was suffering, was not said to be a serious ailment justifying the release of the petitioner on parole. 4. Mr.N.G.Shah, learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner, by referring to the documents filed by the respondents at Exh.R-2 has urged before us that the petitioner had been released on parole/furlough on 5 different occasions earlier and on 4 occasions, the petitioner had surrendered within time. Only on one occasion, the petitioner was late by one day. It is also urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since Hysterectomy surgery has been advised by the Medical Officer, the petitioner ought to have been released. The learned A.P.P. has justified the order passed by the respondents. 5. The petitioner had been released on parole/furlough on 5 different occasions earlier to his applying for his release on parole in the present case. On 4 occasions, the petitioner had surrendered within time and was late by one day on one occasion. Thus the 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.466 of 2011 conduct and the behaviour of the petitioner would not lead to draw an inference that the petitioner was likely to abscond in the event he was released on parole. In any event, there was no material whatsoever to even remotely suggest that the petitioner would abscond, if released on parole. The ailment with which the wife of the petitioner is suffering, is a serious ailment particularly in the light of the fact that Hysterectomy surgery has been advised by the Medical Officer. Obviously, the surgery is a major surgery involving the removal of an organ inside the body. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us, the petitioner ought to have been released on parole by the authorities. The impugned order can not be sustained in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the authorities to release the petitioner on parole, on such terms and conditions which the authorities consider fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. 7. Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. Fees payable to the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri.N.G.Shah is quantified at Rs.1,500/- (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JULY 2011/cri.w.p.466-11