1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.496 OF 2011 (Raju Babulal Khandare vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Ms. S.B. Saikhede, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. --------- CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 7, 2011 The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 2/9/2011 passed by the respondent no.1 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole in order to attend to his ailing father. The petitioner had applied on 26/7/2011 seeking his release on parole on the ground that his father, who was an aged person, was suffering from 2 diabetes, hyper-tension and asthma. The Police report was called for and the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that on previous occasions, the petitioner had surrendered late and consequently, there was every likelihood that if the petitioner was released on parole, he would abscond. On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit-in-reply, a chart is disclosed, which shows that the petitioner on two occasions was late by 252 days and 18 days. The affidavit-in-reply further discloses that the ailment with which the father of the petitioner was suffering was not a serious ailment entitling the petitioner to apply for his release on parole. We have examined the affidavit-in-reply as well as the grounds in the impugned order for rejection of the application of the petitioner. According to us, there is no perversity in the reasoning of the Authorities below to warrant any interference in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. We accordingly dismiss the petition. 3 However, while dismissing the petition, we grant liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh and further direct the respondents that in the event the petitioner applies afresh, the said application be decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and being uninfluenced by the rejection of the present petition. The criminal writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty as stated above with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE khj