- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMIINAL WRIT PETITION NO.871/2010 Kubar s/o Sheshrao Hulgunde, age 40 yrs., occu.prisoner and agri. r/o Bhilaj Tq.Jintur Dist.Parbhani. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 2] The Superintendent of Jail, Harsool Jail, Aurangabad. 3] The Superintendent of Police, Parbhani. ...Respondents... ..... Shri V.M. Maney, Advocate for petitioner. Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for respondent nos.1 to 3. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 07.10.2010 PER COURT : 1] This is a petition filed by the petitioner for challenging the order passed by the respondents dated 3.8.2010 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking - 2 - his release on parole. 2] It appears that the petitioner had filed an application seeking his release on parole on the ground that his wife was suffering from Fibroid Uterus with white discharge with CTI with PUO from 17.5.2010 onwards. The certificate further clearly indicates that the wife of the petitioner was under the treatment of Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Adgaon Tq.Jintur Dist.Parbhani. The medical certificate does not in any manner express the gravity of the illness nor does it advice surgical intervention as part of the treatment. 3] The application of the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondents on the ground that the ailment of the wife of the petitioner was not serious so as to justify his release on parole. The other ground attributed in the order is that if the petitioner was released on parole, the petitioner was likely to threaten the witnesses, who had been examined against the petitioner. 4] Shri V.M. Maney, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged before us that the petitioner was on bail during trial and there are no instances where the petitioner has threatened the prosecution witnesses or has breached any of the conditions of his release on bail. It is also urged before us that it is necessary to take the wife of the petitioner to the medical officers for treatment and looking to the nature of ailment of the wife of the petitioner, she would not be comfortable in the company of others except the petitioner. - 3 - 5] On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply, it is stated that in the light of the fact that the nature of ailment of the wife of the petitioner was not serious, the application came to be rejected. 6] We have seen the medical certificate annexed by the petitioner and on perusal thereof, it does not appear that the ailment of the wife of the petitioner is serious so as to warrant his release on parole. The other ground, as stated in the impugned order, that the petitioner was likely to threaten the prosecution witnesses, would not be germane in the light of the fact that the petitioner had been released on bail during the trial and had not committed any act of extending threats to the prosecution witnesses. However, since the ailment of the wife of the petitioner is not serious, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 7] Accordingly, this petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr710103