1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.93/2008 Vishwas Rajaram Dhawane ...Versus... The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri N.A. Badar, Adv. (appointed) for petitioner] [Shri J.B. Jaiswal, APP for respondents] CORAM:- K.J. ROHEE & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 23.04.2008 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and A.P.P. for the respondents. 2. The petitioner seeks parole on the ground of illness of his mother. His application for parole was rejected by order dated 31.12.2007 on the ground that on previous occasions when leave was granted to the petitioner, he did not surrender on time. Hence, though the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police gave favourable reports, the competent authority did not 2 agree with them and rejected the application. 3. The reply-affidavit filed by the respondents shows that by orders dated 15.12.1997 and 3.10.2000 the petitioner was released on parole. However, on both these occasions, the petitioner did not surrender on time and absconded for a period of 487 days and 73 days and was required to be arrested by the police. He is in the habit of not surrendering in jail on time. It has also been stated that the petitioner has two real brothers and though they reside separately, they can look after the mother. It may further be noted that the mother of the petitioner is aged about 85 years and is ill since couple of years. Thus, it cannot be said that there is serious illness so as to entitle the petitioner to seek parole on that ground under Rule 19 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Hence, we find that the competent authority was fully justified in rejecting the application for parole. We see no force in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 4. Fees of Advocate appointed for the petitioner is quantified at Rs.750/- only. JUDGE JUDGE ssw