sat 1 wp 951-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 951 OF 2011 Shri Nitin Laxman Pansare ...Petitioner vs. Home Department, Mantralaya, Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mrs.Harjeet Kaur for the Petitioner. Mr.A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. AUGUST 1, 2011 P.C. :- 1 The petitioner is undergoing life sentence and had submitted an application for parole leave. The said application for parole leave was rejected by the competent authority on 27th December, 2010. The petitioner moved an appeal against the said order before the State Government and the appeal has been dismissed on 16th March, 2011. sat 2 wp 951-2011 2 Under the scheme of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, grant of parole leave is a discretion subject to meeting of certain contingencies and more particularly, some unexpected circumstances like death in the family, marriage in the family, hospitalization, etc.. If the application for parole has been rejected by conducting an inquiry or on the basis of the adverse past record of the applicant, such an order may not call for an interference so long as the reasons are supported from the record. 3 In the instant case, it has been stated in the order that on an earlier occasion when the petitioner was released on furlough leave, he had absconded for 195 days and he was arrested by the police and admitted to the jail. It is also stated that some offences have been filed against the petitioner. It is also stated that the reason given for parole leave was father’s sickness and on inquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Pune (Rural), it was sat 3 wp 951-2011 revealed that the petitioner has other family members to look after his ailing father. Hence, in our opinion, the order rejecting the application for parole leave and confirmed by the appellate authority, cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore, it does not call for any interference. 4 The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. In view of the dismissal of the petition, connected Criminal Application No.340/2011 does not survive and the same is also dismissed. 5 We make it clear that if the petitioner submits an application for furlough leave, the same will be considered on its own merits. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)