1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 122 OF 2010 SAHEBRAO MAROTI BHUMRE V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Shri S.J.Salgare, Advocate for the applicant and Shri V.D.Godbharale, APP for respondent ... CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & S.S.SHINDE,JJ. Dated : 9.4.2010 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent No.2 dt.4.12.2009 and seeks parole leave of thirty days. 4. Petitioner had applied respondent No.2 seeking 30 days parole leave. Said application was rejected by respondent No.2 (Exhibit "C"). Two reasons have been communicated by respondent No.2 to petitioner for rejection of the same. Firstly, earlier, when fifteen days parole leave was granted to the petitioner, he over stayed for a day and 2 secondly, there is apprehension of danger to life and property of witness, who is residing in the same village, in case of release of the petitioner on parole. Respondent No.2 also apprehended commission of offense at the hands of petitioner in case of his release on the parole. Respondent No.2, however, has made it clear, fairly, that original complainant, on whose complaint crime was registered, investigated and ended in conviction of the petitioner has left the village. Respondent No.2 was also doubtful that in case of release of the petitioner he may not return to the prison after completion of the parole period. Hence, the request of the petitioner was rejected. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor had filed reply affidavit sworn in by Shri Natha Paradhi, Tahsildar, Aurangabad. The order passed by respondent No.2 is supported by this affidavit. 6. On behalf of respondent, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out the adverse report submitted by Superintendent of Police, Hingoli. It appears that in this report, Additional Superintendent of Police has informed to respondent no.2 that on 4.8.2009, furlough leave was granted to the petitioner, however, he over stayed for a day and this time, if parole leave is granted, he expressed his doubt that the petitioner may not return to the prison after completion of the leave. It also reveals from this report that original complainant after incident, had left the village along with her children 3 and her whereabouts are not known to him. According to this report, main witness in the case was Sumanbai. There is no Police Patil as of today appointed by the State Government for the village concerned. Report from the Sarpanch is annexed with the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police. It has also been reported by the Additional Superintendent of Police that there are two offenses registered against the petitioner. However, the details of the offenses have not been given by him to respondent No.2. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that earlier he had surrendered voluntarily, may be after one day's overstay. He has placed on record copy of the medical certificate in support of the contentions raised in the writ petition, that his wife suffers from "Functional Uterine Hemorrhage with sever Anemia" and that she needs surgical intervention. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, adverse report by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Hingoli is not material or important so as to turn down the request of the petitioner. We are inclined to allow this petition. 9. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law. 4 This order be communicated to the respondents by fastest mode of communication. 10. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 11. Fees of the learned Advocate (amicus curiae) appearing for the petitioner is quantified at Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand only/-). He be paid accordingly. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) ... akl