IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 183 OF 2011 Rajendra Dharamraj Giradkar Vs. Divisional Commissioner Nagpur Division Nagpur & Ano. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Order Shri B. M. Waranashiwar Adv for petitioner. Smt Tripathi APP for respondent/State. CORAM:V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.L. TAHALIYANI JJ. Dated: 29 th MARCH, 2011. . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The case of the petitioner is that he had applied for parole on 25.09.2010 on the ground of illness of his father. The said application came to be rejected on 28.11.2010. Thereafter he preferred another application for parole on 29.11.2010. In response to that application the petitioner was informed that the said application also came to be rejected and the petitioner was informed that he has right to file appeal. Application for parole came to be rejected on three grounds, first ground is that it was found that father was not suffering from any serious illness. Medical Certificate dated 10.09.2010 shows that father of the petitioner is suffering from anemia and he needed rest for one month. Rule 19 of the Bombay Furlough And Parole Rules, 1959 states that prisoner may be released on parole in case of serious illness. However, the Medical Certificate does not show that the illness is of a serious nature. Second ground on which parole was rejected is that on earlier occasions the petitioner was released on parole but he did not surrender in time. In the year 2009 when the petitioner was released on parole he did not report back in time and eventually he had to be arrested and brought back to prison. On this occasion he was late by 50 days. Again in 2010 the petitioner was released on parole. On this occasion he was late by 90 days in surrendering back to the prison. In the year 2010 he surrendered on 17.09.2010 and within a week he preferred the application for parole dated 29.10.2010 which we have stated earlier has been rejected. He again preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his father which illness we have already observed was not serious. The third ground on which the application for parole came to be rejected is that petitioner had stated that his mother would stand surety for him. Report shows that mother is not a suitable surety as she is not able to keep a check on her son. It is seen from the facts of this case that on earlier occasions when the petitioner was released on parole he did not surrender back in time this shows that his mother has not been able to keep a check on him and ensure that he reports back to prison on time. Looking to the above mentioned three reasons stated by the authorities, we cannot find fault with any of the said reasons, hence, no case is made out for interference. Petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE svk