{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.642 OF 2010 Sumanbai Ramesh Palkomwad (Koli) R/o Pala, Tq-Mukhed, Dist-Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Amit Savale, Advocate for the petitioner (Appointed) Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 23rd August 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication, sent by the petitioner, by post, came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. This Court had accordingly appointed Advocate Mr.Amit Savale to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. {2} 3. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for premature release of her husband on the ground that her husband has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. It appears that the husband of the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. On notice being issued to the respondent, the respondent has filed affidavit in reply and has stated that the case of the husband of the petitioner, for premature release, would be considered on the husband of the petitioner completing 22 years of imprisonment, including remission earned by the husband of the petitioner, subject to his good behaviour and conduct in the prison up to the aforesaid period of his release. In the light of the aforesaid statement made in the affidavit of the respondent, according to us, the grievance of the petitioner has been attended to. 5. We do not, therefore, found any merit in the present petition and the present petition is dismissed, accepting the statement made on behalf of the respondent in the affidavit in reply that the case of the husband of the petitioner for premature release would be considered on the husband of the petitioner completing 22 years of the imprisonment. {3} 6. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged. We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.3000/- [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp642-10