spb/- 1 wp803-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 803 OF 2011 Rajesh Rajmal Jadi ... Petitioner . V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. --- Through Jail : None for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Gadkari, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : P. V. HARDAS & M.N.GILANI,JJ. DATE : 18TH APRIL, 2011. PC: 1 Rule. Rule made returnabe forthwith. This petition is through jail. However, with the consent of the learned APP for the Respondent State, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 The Petitioner is a convict, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life at Nasik. The petitioner had applied for his release on parole on the ground of illness of his mother. It appears that the application submitted by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the police report expressed apprehension that the petitioner may pose a threat to the life of the complainant or the witnesses who had been examined under trial. The petitioner has also filed writ petition in this court which came to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal and accordingly, this communication has been received from the petitioner through jail, after the decision of the appellate authority. spb/- 2 wp803-11.sxw 3 The appellate authority has relied upon the police report. The order of the appellate authority discloses as to what was the basis for the police to express their apprehension that the petitioner was likely to pose a threat to the opposite party. Mere ipse dixit of the police officers could not be made basis for rejecting the application if the prisoner is otherwise entitled to in law. Before accepting the police report that the petitioner is likely to pose a threat to the witnesses or the complainant, there has to be some objective material on the basis of which such subjective satisfaction can be arrived at. In the present case, there was no objective material apart from the mere submission of the police inspector that the petitioner was likely to pose a threat to the complainant or the witnesses. 4 The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad, in his report had stated that there is a threat to the life of the petitioner. There in nothing on record to indicate that there is substance in the apprehension expressed by the Police Officer that there is a threat to the life of the petitioner. 5 In the circumstances, therefore, according to us the petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner be released on parole for such a period and/or terms which the authority may deem fit and appropriate. The authority may, however, impose certain conditions on the petitioner which would ensure that his life is safeguarded and that his life is not unnecessarily jeopardized. In that light of the matter, the petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute. [M.N.GILANI,J.] [P.V. HARDAS, J.]