IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.537 OF 2010. Subhash Laxmanrao Bhoyar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mrs. Bharati Gunjal, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner. Mr. N.N. Jadhav, A.P.P. for respondents. ... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 24th June, 2010. PER COURT: We heard learned Counsel Mrs. Bharti Gunjal (appointed) for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mr. Jadhav for the Respondents. 2 It is not in dispute that the petitioner earlier was lodged in Central Prison, Nagpur. He was transferred from Nagpur Central Prison on 31st January, 2010 to Open Jail, Paithan. He had earlier applied on 8th February, 2010 seeking parole leave on the ground of alleged illness of his wife. The grievance was hyper tension. The said application was considered and rejected by the respondents. In response to the notice, respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply sworn in by Mr. Govind s/o Phulsing Chavan, Tahsildar (GAD), Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The learned A.P.P. points out paragraph 5 of the affidavit. 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that she was appointed by this Court on 7th June, 2010 and the matter was adjourned to 28th June, 2010 and affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of the State. However, she got knowledge from the relatives of the petitioner – prisoner that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner namely, Roshani is scheduled on 30th June, 2010 at 8.55 a.m. Copy of the marriage invitation card is placed on record at Exh.B. The marriage is scheduled to take place at Nagpur. 4 The learned A.P.P. points out that this was not the ground raised earlier while seeking parole - furlough leave. It is true that such ground was not raised neither it has been considered by the authorities and the application of the petitioner has been turned down. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out Rule 19 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which is incorporated in paragraph 8 of the petition. She points out last words “or for any other sufficient cause.” (emphasis supplied). She relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Manjulabai Kisna Gulabe & others vs State of Maharashtra (2003 Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 87). We have seen the said judgment of learned D 537 ivision Bench of this Court. In our view, in the case in hand, the petitioner claims that marriage of his daughter is settled recently and scheduled on 30th June, 2010 at Nagpur. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to remand the matter to the authorities concerned to consider the grant of parole leave in favour of the petitioner on the ground of marriage of his daughter to be solemnized on 30th June, 2010 at Nagpur. Copy of the writ petition along with marriage invitation card is already served on the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondents. In paragraphs 6 and 7 statement is made that after submission of the parole application, the petitioner – prisoner has received information about the marriage of his elder daughter, which is scheduled on 30th June, 2010. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out a statement made in paragraph 11 that there is no responsible person in the family of the petitioner to arrange and perform the marriage ceremony of his elder daughter and, therefore, presence of the petitioner and/or grant of parole leave is necessary 5 Copy of this writ petition along with invitation card is duly served to the learned A.P.P. Mr. Jadhav. 6 We do not intend to enter into the merits of the impugned order rejecting parole leave to the petitioner on the ground of illness of his wife. However, we direct the respondents to consider the prayer of the present petitioner for grant of appropriate parole leave enabling him to attend marriage of his daughter to be performed on 30th June, 2010. Present writ petition, therefore, can be considered as an application made by the present petitioner to the respondents authorities for grant of parole leave on the ground of marriage of his daughter. 7 The criminal writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the ground raised by the petitioner for grant of appropriate parole leave enabling him to attend marriage of his elder daughter Roshani to be solemnized at Nagpur on 30th June, 2010. The respondent No.2 is further directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with provisions of law on or before 28th June, 2010. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Jadhav to communicate this order to the respondents. Apart from this, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to convey this order today only to the respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad by fax, telephone or any other fastest mode of communication. The respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad to communicate his decision immediately to the respondent No.3. We quantity Rs.2000/- towards fees and expenses to the learned Counsel Mrs. Bharati Gunjal (appointed) for the petitioner. Petition is partly allowed and stands disposed of in the above terms. Authentic copy of this order is permitted to both parties. [ S.S. SHINDE ] [ S.B. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE JUDGE Kadam/*