1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 666 OF 2009 Mohd. Irfan Mohd. Irdish Shaikh. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra. .... Respondent. Mr. Jagdish Shetty for the Petitioner. Mrs. U. V. Kejariwal, APP for the State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and F. M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 2ND APRIL, 2009. P.C.: The petitioner applied for parole on the ground that his wife was suffering from “Hernia” and she needed surgery. The application has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner if released on parole will harm the witness, who gave evidence against him, in the case in which he is convicted. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, which is not disputed, that the petitioner was earlier released on furlough also and he surrendered intime and during that time there was no harm caused to anybody. One of the person, whose statement has been recorded by the Authority branding him as witness, who was never a witness in the case, 2 according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. However, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the main reason for rejecting of the application for parole was, no date fixed for surgery was mentioned by the petitioner in his application. Obviously, the date could not have been mentioned and the date could have been mentioned by the prisoner only if he was sure as to when he would be released. Therefore, the order of the respondent cannot sustain and it is set aside. 3. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole within two weeks from today on usual conditions. 4. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (F. M. REIS, J.)