1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.460 OF 2009 Pandya @ Pandit Kashinath Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Ms.Varsha Kapse, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Shri S.K.Kadam, APP for respondent-State CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 2nd July 2009 PER COURT : 1. A letter sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly we had appointed Ms.Varsha Kapse as a Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner takes exception to an order dated 6.3.2009 passed by the Divisional Commission, Aurangabad declining to release the petitioner on parole on account of serious ailment of his wife. It appears that the wife of the petitioner who is suffering from an ailment, “PID”, submitted an application before the appropriate authorities seeking his release on parole. The impugned order states that the illness with which the wife of 2 the petitioner is suffering is not of such a serious nature. The second reason given in the impugned order is that the petitioner, on earlier occasion had been released on parole but was required to be arrested and the petitioner had absconded for a period of 240 days. Similarly, when the petitioner had been released on 8.4.2008, the petitioner had surrendered late by 16 days. On account of the reasons, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad rejected the application of the petitioner. 3. We have heard learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The medical certificate of the wife of the petitioner has been made available for our perusal by the learned APP. The said medical certificate which is taken on record and marked “X” for the purpose of identification recites that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from “PID” and was under the treatment of the Medical Officer from 20.2.2009 as an outdoor patient. In the said certificate which is dated 20.2.2009, it is stated that treatment is advised to the wife of the petitioner. The certificate nowhere states that the ailment is of serious nature which would require either surgical intervention or hospitalization. In the light of that, therefore, we cannot fault the authorities in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the twin grounds referred to above. 4. We thus see no merit in the petition and dismiss it with no order as to costs but with liberty to the petitioner to submit an application afresh 3 seeking his release on parole after period of six months from today. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (Rs. One thousand five hundred). ( R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) vvr/460.09criwp