2. WP 875-11.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 875 OF 2011 Prem Kishor Raj ] Sunrise Society, 5/D, Flat No. 603, ] 6th Floor, A.K. Vaidya Marg, Malad (E), ] Mumbai - 400 097. ] (In Jail......C-5480, Barrack No. 6, ] Thane Central Prison, Thane - 400 601. ] Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ] (Through the Principal Secretary ] (Appeals) Dept, of Home and Jails, ] Government of Maharashtra, ] Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ] Respondent Mr. Adrian Phillips i/b Mr. Ranjeet Chouguley for the Petitioner Mr. P.A. Pol, PP for the State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.N. GILANI, JJ. DATE : 15th APRIL, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P.V. HARDAS, J]: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the 1 2. WP 875-11.doc petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole. 4. It appears that the proposal was received by the Government on 13th September 2010 in respect of release of the petitioner on parole. The petitioner had sought his release on the ground of ailment of his father. The respondent by the order impugned in the present petition dated 11th November 2010 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the mother of the petitioner was capable of looking after and taking care of the ailing father of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that on account of advanced age of his mother, it cannot be said that the mother was in a condition to look after the welfare of his father particularly on account of his ailment. The learned PP has supported the impugned order. 6. In the light of the advanced age of the mother of the petitioner, parole could not have been rejected on the ground that the mother of the petitioner could look after the welfare of the father of the petitioner. According to us, since there was no 2 2. WP 875-11.doc dispute in respect of ailment with which the father of the petitioner was suffering, the petitioner ought to have been released on parole. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for such period as the respondent considers it fit and proper and also on such terms that the respondent considers it fit and proper. 7. Rule is, therefore, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ M.N. GILANI, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 3 2. WP 875-11.doc 4