1 wp46611 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 466 OF 2011 Vasant Mangu Pawra ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. N.N. Gavankar i/by Mr. Arfan Sait for the Petitioner Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P., for the State CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 25TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.:- This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Appropriate Authority dated 5th February, 2011. 2. Although the Appropriate Authority, in principle, has no reservation in granting parole leave to the petitioner, has imposed condition, which is subject-matter of challenge in this petition. The objectionable condition provides that, so long as the co-accused, who has already been released on parole but not returned to jail, until he 2 wp46611 returns to jail, the petitioner cannot avail of the parole leave. The fact that the co-accused was released on parole and was expected to return on 7th February, 2011 and has not reported back to jail thus far is not in dispute. The question is: Whether such condition can be said to be reasonable condition to deny the right of another convict available to him as per the provision of the statutory rules? The fact that both the co- accused were tried together for one offence can be no reason to insist that, unless the co-accused already released on parole leave returns, the other accused cannot avail of the said facility. There can be no justification for such condition. The fact that the co-accused has not surrendered to jail within the specified period cannot militate against the petitioner whose conduct in jail is otherwise found to be impeccable. If the conduct of the co-accused is objectionable, that can be no reason to punish the petitioner, who otherwise has abided by all the conditions in jail and is willing to abide by the condition on which he would be released on parole. We can understand if the authority had information that, if the petitioner were to go out on parole, would replicate the conduct of the co-accused and not return to jail or abscond. 3. That is not the argument canvassed before us by the learned A.P.P. If so, the State, instead of denying parole facility to the petitioner, 3 wp46611 should be more concerned about ensuring arrest of the absconding co-accused, and for that purpose, ought to take measures as are permissible in law against the co-accused, but, by no stretch of imagination, the authority can impose condition such as condition No. 1 in the impugned order, which impinges upon the right of the petitioner, and cannot be said to be reasonable condition. 4. Accordingly, Condition No. 1 in order dated 5th February, 2011 is quashed and set aside. We, however, make it clear that, before releasing the petitioner on parole, it will be open to the Appropriate Authority to specify further strict conditions, as may be advised. 5. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 6. The concerned Authority would take appropriate decision in the light of this order expeditiously, and in any case, within two weeks from today. A.R. JOSHI, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.