1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 557 OF 2010 Asaram s/o Babanrao Daskar, Age Major, Occu.Nil, Convict No.3629, Open District Jail, Paithan, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Superintendent of the Open District Jail, Paithan, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad 3. The Dy.Commissioner (G.D.), Divisional Commissioner Office, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Shinde, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 28th July 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. A letter sent by the petitioner through jail taking exception to the rejection of his application seeking his release on parole in order to attend to his ailing wife is the subject matter of this petition. The said communication sent by the petitioner through jail was registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly, Mr.S.S.Shinde came to be appointed as a Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition. 3. The petitioner had submitted an application seeking his release on parole on the ground that his wife was suffering from Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding (DOB) with severe anaemia and there was no one in the family to look after his ailing wife. The application of the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondents on the ground that the witnesses examined against the petitioner during trial had expressed an apprehension that in the event the petitioner was released on parole, the petitioner was likely to threaten the witnesses and cause alarm harm and danger to them. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner had been released on parole on previous six occasions. The affidavit-in-reply does not disclose that the petitioner had misused the discretion exercised by the authorities in his favour. The affidavit-in-reply also does not disclose that the petitioner had threatened the witnesses and had 3 been examined in the trial against him. The petitioner came to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 11.10.2000 in Sessions Trial No.204 of 1996. In such circumstances, when there was no objective material before the authorities to come to a conclusion that the petitioner, if released on parole was likely to cause alarm harm or danger or threaten the prosecution witnesses, the authorities ought not to have accepted the mere ipse dixit of the prosecution witnesses. 5. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this petition and accordingly, allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to release the petitioner on parole for the period applied for on such terms and conditions which the authorities deem fit and proper. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three thousand). Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/557.10criwp) 4