Cr.WP/1028/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1028 OF 2011 Balu Shankar Patil Age major, Occ. In jail, r/o Prisoner No.4260, Open Jail, Paithan, district Aurangabad. ..Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Police Kolhapur 3.Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. ..Respondents ... Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Gaurav Deshpande (appointed) APP for Respondents: Shri D.V.Tele ... CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH & A.M. THIPSAY, JJ. Dated: December 21, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner's parole leave has been rejected by the competent authority / respondent No.3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that earlier for thirteen times , parole leave was granted in his favour and akl Cr.WP/1028/2011 2 every time, he surrendered / reported to the jail authorities on due dates. There was no breach of any condition and/or peace at the instance of the petitioner on any of the occasions. This time, the application was rejected on the ground of adverse police report. 4. On behalf of respondents, affidavit in reply has been filed by Shri Ramesh Bankar, Police Inspector. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the order of rejection passed by the competent authority on 16.9.2011. According to him, the competent authority, even did not consider the report of respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur. He points out the report Exhibit "B" of respondent No.2. According to Shri Deshpande, learned Advocate for the petitioner, adverse police report cannot be the only ground for rejection of the parole. He relies on the Government Circular dated 25.10.2001. This circular was issued in view of the various orders passed by this Court. We have perused the same. 6. In the case on hand, we have considered paragraph No.4 of the affidavit in reply, which clearly admits that earlier for thirteen times, parole leave was granted in favour of the petitioner and he has reported back to the jail on due date every time. It is further mentioned in this paragraph that during this period, there was no complaint against the petitioner. Now, in the case on hand, communication has been addressed akl Cr.WP/1028/2011 3 by respondent No.2 dated 27.7.2011 seeking information from the subordinate Police Officer i.e. Kagal Police Station. On enquiry, the report was submitted on 9.8.2011 by the said Police Station to respondent No.2. Said report is adverse to the petitioner 7. Learned APP took us to paragraph No.5 of the affidavit in reply. Therein, it is contended that in case of grant of parole, apprehension has been expressed by one of the witnesses, who has deposed in Sessions Case and that is the reason, according to affiant, for rejection of the parole application. Annexure R-1 dated 24.8.2011 is perused by us. It is the communication under the signature of Additional Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur to the competent authority. In this communication, it has been informed that wife of prisoner Indubai is suffering from stomach ailment and is being treated by Dr. Rahul Ganbawale of Majale, Tq. Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. Medical certificate of the said Doctor is obtained and annexed with the report. It appears from the said communication that said Doctor was consulted and enquired with regard to the alleged illness of the wife of the petitioner. This communication further makes a reference to the statement of witness Rangarao Patil, resident of Kembali, Tq. Kagal, District Kolhapur. Said witness has raised an objection as regards release of the petitioner on parole. It is pertinent to note that along with the communication dated 24.8.2011, addressed by respondent No.2 to the competent authority, apart from the statement of said Rangarao Patil, no other material is placed on record. akl Cr.WP/1028/2011 4 8. We have considered the circumstance that earlier for thirteen times, parole was granted and the prisoner had surrendered to the jail authorities on due date and time and that there was no complaint regarding breach of peace at the hands of the petitioner. In our opinion, only because one of the witnesses has raised an objection, parole leave cannot be refused. Important aspect of the matter as regards illness of the wife of the petitioner is neither disputed nor questioned. 9. In the result, impugned order is quashed and set aside. We direct respondent No.3 - competent authority to pass appropriate order granting parole in accordance with the Bombay Parole and Furlough Rules, 1959. Such order is to be passed by the competent authority within two weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order. Learned APP to communicate this order to the competent authority. Registry to make available authentic copy of this order to the learned APP. 10. Rule made absolute accordingly. 11. We quantify Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only/-) towards fees and expenses to be paid to the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( A.M. THIPSAY, J. ) ( S. B. DESHMUKH, J. ) ... akl