1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.556 OF 2010 BALAJI SAYANNA BAKWAD V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Shri V.B.Jagtap, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE,JJ. Dated : 15.7.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner, on his application, was granted parole leave for thirty days. He was released on 6.1.2010 and was required to surrender on 5.2.2010. However, he applied for extension of leave by thirty days. It was also granted. Thereafter, again, at the request of the petitioner, parole was further extended by thirty days. In totality, the petitioner has exhausted ninety days' parole leave. 2 4. In paragraph No.5 of the affidavit in reply, reference is made to the Government Circular dt. 21.3.2001. As per paragraph No.4 of this circular, ninety days is the maximum ceiling for availing parole leave in one calendar year. In the case on hand, said period has been granted and availed by the petitioner in a calendar year. According to learned APP, in this view of the matter, request made by the petitioner for extension of further parole leave cannot be considered. 5. In view of the affidavit in reply and Government Circular so also the fact that the petitioner has already availed ninety days parole leave during one calendar year, in our view, the petitioner is not entitled / eligible for such parole leave. The view taken by the authority cannot be said to be perverse. The petition sans merits. 6. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. 7. We quantify Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only/-) towards fees and expenses, to be paid to the learned Advocate (amicus curiae) for the petitioner. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl