1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.66/2008 Aniskhan Dilawarkhan, r/o. Kothari, Tq. Motala P.S. Borakhedi (District – Buldhana) Convict No. C-3507, Central Prison, Amravati. .. Petitioner .. Versus .. 1. State of Maharashtra, through Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati. .. Respondents .......... Mr. N.A. Badar, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. O.D. Kakde, APP for the respondents. .......... Coram : K.J. Rohee & A.B. Chaudhari, JJ Dated : 16 th April, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : K. J. ROHEE, J) 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2 2. By this petition the petitioner seeks parole for a period of 30 days on account of illness of his mother. On 26.5.2007 the petitioner had applied to respondent no.1 for grant of parole on the said count. However, after inquiry the said application came to be rejected by order dated 2.11.2007. 3. A perusal of the said order dated 2.11.2007 shows that the report of the Superintendent of Police, Buldhana dated 5.10.2007 shows that the brother of the petitioner and mother of the petitioner reside separately and that no specific opinion was expressed about releasing him on parole. Hence, the application came to be rejected. 4. It may be noted that in the reply which was filed on behalf of the respondents, there is no reference whatsoever to the report of the Superintendent of Police, Buldhana dated 5.10.2007. All that the reply refers to is the report of Superintendent of Police, Buldhana dated 19.8.2007 which clearly shows that the mother of the petitioner is physically disabled. It further shows that the son and daughter-in-law of the mother of the petitioner reside in the same village but they reside separately and do not take care of the mother. At the end of the report it was specifically mentioned that the police department has no objection for releasing the petitioner 3 on parole. It may be noted that in the impugned order dated 2.11.2007 this report dated 19.8.2007 has not at all been considered. The report which is considered in the said order is not before the court. It is thus obvious that respondent no.1 has not applied its mind to the facts of the case and proceeded to reject the application mechanically. The said order is thus illegal and cannot be sustained. We, therefore, pass the following order : 5. The petition is allowed. The order dated 2.11.2007 of respondent no.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent no.1 is directed to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days on his furnishing securities to the satisfaction of the jail authorities. 6. Rule is made absolute in above terms. JUDGE JUDGE ....................