1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 188/2011 Jagganath Rajaram Ghuge vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. N.S.Bhat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.B.Yengal, APP for respondents. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 06.04.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for parole, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner had preferred application for parole on the ground of making arrangements for the marriage of his children. The daughter of the petitioner is aged about 19 years and his son is aged about 22 years. The application for parole came to be rejected on the ground that it is apprehended that if the petitioner is released on parole, the petitioner will not report back to the Prison i.e. the petitioner will abscond. 2` Affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Prison shows that on six occasions the petitioner was released on furlough. Only on first occasion i.e. when the petitioner was released on furlough on 27.8.1996, the petitioner surrendered on due date. Thereafter, on the next five occasions when the petitioner was released on furlough he overstayed the period of furlough. In fact on two occasions the petitioner had to be arrested and brought back to the prison. On the second occasion when the petitioner was released on furlough he overstayed by 237 days. On the third occasion when the petitioner was released on furlough he did not report back in time. On this occasion he was arrested by the police after 130 days and brought back to prison. On the fourth occasion, when the petitioner was released on furlough, the petitioner did not return back to the prison in time. Eventually he had to be arrested by the police and brought back to prison. On this occasion, the period of overstay was 72 days. Thereafter, again the petitioner was released on two occasions on furlough and on these occasions also he overstayed the period of furlough. Looking to the above background, we cannot find any error in the apprehension expressed by the authorities that if the petitioner is released he will not report back to prison. In view of the above facts, no case is made out for interference. Petition is rejected. 3` Needless to mention that if a fresh application is preferred by the applicant for parole, the authorities to consider the same on its own merits. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner, who is in Morshi Open Prison. JUDGE JUDGE patle