Cri.W.P.1192 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1192 OF 2010 Rajabhau Manikrao Sawane ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Ms Shobha S.Adkine, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner Mr N.H.Borade, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 8th February 2011 PER COURT 1. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly, when this petition was placed before us for admission, we had appointed Advocate Ms Shobha S.Adkine as a Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition. 2. This petition is a sequel of Writ Petition No.664 of 2010, which the petitioner had filed and which came to be allowed by this Court on 30.8.2010. In Criminal Writ Petition No.664 of 2010, the petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner, which was said to be pending. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing then had made a statement before the Court that the application of the petitioner would be decided within two Cri.W.P.1192 of 2010 2 weeks. This Court accepting the aforesaid statement of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as an undertaking to the Court allowed the petition. 3. Consequent upon the aforesaid order passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.664 of 2010, the application of the petitioner came up for consideration and accordingly, the petitioner was released on parole for thirty days w.e.f. 7.10.2010 till 5.11.2010. The petitioner was under an obligation to surrender on 6.11.2010. It appears that the petitioner did not surrender on 6.11.2010 and in fact, surrendered on 15.11.2010. It further appears that the petitioner had sought an extention of six days to his parole leave on the ground of ailment of his wife. The aforesaid application came to be rejected by the respondents on 8.11.2010. The petitioner being thus aggrieved by the aforesaid orders has addressed a communication to this Court, which came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents. Undisputedly, the leave period has come to an end and the petitioner has surrendered before the prison authorities on 15.11.2010. Considering the aforesaid facts, his plea for extension of the parole leave by itself cannot be entertained as that would amount to granting fresh leave to the petitioner. The petitioner would be at liberty to submit an Cri.W.P.1192 of 2010 3 application seeking parole leave. In the event such an application is made the respondents are directed to decide the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 5. Since we do not see any merit in the matter, we dismiss the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh and direct the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner, if submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One thousand five hundred). ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/1192.2010criwp)