1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 772 OF 2011 Vasant Mangu Pawra. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. N.N.Gavankar i/b. Mr. Arfan Sait, advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. S.V.Gajare, APP for State. CORAM:- P.V.HARDAS AND M.N.GILANI, JJ DATED:- MARCH 24, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner questions the legality of the part of the condition No.2 imposed on the Petitioner by order dated 9th March, 2011 releasing the Petitioner on parole. 3 It appears that the Petitioner had filed an earlier Petition namely, Criminal Writ Petition No.466 of 2011 questioning the correctness and validity of condition No.1, which was imposed on the Petitioner by order of the Respondent dated 5th February, 2011 granting parole to the Petitioner. By the present 2 condition, which is impugned in the present Petition, the Respondent has stated that the Petitioner would be released on parole for a period of 30 days. Further part of the condition No.2 is that after 30 days of parole, the Petitioner would not be granted any extension of his parole leave. Undisputedly the rule provides an opportunity to a convict to apply for extension of his parole leave by making out a case. Rule further provides that such extension may be granted by the authorities, which should not exceed more than 90 days. Thus, the right of the Petitioner to apply for extension of the parole leave stands scuttled by the aforesaid condition. It amounts prejudging the application, which is likely to be filed by the Petitioner, by stating that the aforesaid application would not be entertained nor would extension be granted to the Petitioner. According to us, the aforesaid part of the condition No.2, adverted to above, is unsustainable in law. 4 We accordingly, allow this Writ Petition and quash and set aside the part of condition No.2, by which the Authority has stated that the Petitioner would not be granted any extension of his parole leave. Rule is therefore made absolute on the above terms. No order as to costs. (M.N.GILANI, J) (P.V.HARDAS, J)