1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.202/2010 (Uddhav Gajanan Girsawale .vs. State of Mah. And another. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.J. Jichkar, APP for Respondents. .......... CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 16, 2010 Heard. By the present petition, the petitioner undergoing imprisonment for life at Nagpur Central Prison since 7.5.2005 has challenged rejection of his application for parole leave applied for 30 days on the count of his wife by name Sangeeta being sick and has prayed for setting aside the same and granting him the parole. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that prayer for parole was erroneously rejected by the authorities as the report of doctor called clearly disclosed that wife of the petitioner was suffering from ailment of heart and uterus. He urged that having regard to the same necessity of treatment for wife of the petitioner was apparent. He urged that in spite of the same, the prayer was rejected on the count of report 2 of verification sent by the Police having mentioned she was not seriously ill and was taking the tablets. It was urged that petitioner was ready to furnish another surety in view of his earlier surety having shown unwillingness for standing as surety. It was thus urged that hence the petition be allowed after taking into consideration the said factor. The learned APP has opposed the application by pointing out from the reply that medical certificate regarding the illness of the wife of the petitioner does not reveal any serious illness and so also the statement of wife recorded during the verification made by the Police. The said submission of learned APP are found supported by the copy of medical certificate annexed with the reply and so also the matters stated in the statement given by wife of the petitioner. Needless to add that perusal of the said certificate apparently does not give any reason to come to the conclusion of wife of the petitioner suffering from the serious illness as contended on behalf of the petitioner. Similarly the matters from the statement of which copy is annexed with the reply also does not lead to any other conclusion. Needless to add that the matters in the said statement also reveal that wife of the petitioner has not even attended any dispensary for taking treatment and had treated by taking the tablets from pharmacy. In the aforesaid state of affairs, we are unable to find any fault with the order dated 1.2.2010 passed by the authorities rejecting the prayer for parole made by the petitioner on such a count and additionally the proposed surety having shown unwillingness to stand as 3 surety for the petitioner. Hence we find no merits in the petition and dismiss the same. The fees of Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, Advocate appointed to appear on behalf of the petitioner, are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE halwai