1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 621 OF 2010 BASHIR AHMED USMAN GANI KHAIRULLA .. PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mrs. A. Z. A. Ansari for the petitioner Mr. R. More, APP. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATED : 12th March, 2010 P.C. The petitioner is lodged in Nashik Road Central Prison. He is a life convict. He was involved in 1993 bomb-blast case. His application for parole on the ground of his wife’s illness has been rejected by respondent 2, vide his order dated 21/11/09, hence he has approached this court. 2. The application is rejected on the ground of adverse police report. In the police report is stated that the petitioner was earlier released on furlough on three occasions. 2 While on furlough the petitioner has regularly attended the police station and he did not commit any offence during that period. It is, however, further stated that if the petitioner is released on parole he may not return to the prison and his brother-in-law Mohamed Ansari may not be able to ensure that he will be of good conduct. 3. In our opinion, the 2nd respondent has wrongly rejected the petitioner’ s application. It cannot be forgotten that on two occasions the petitioner was released on furlough and he came back to the prison on time. He did not commit any offence while on furlough. He abided by the conditions imposed on him while releasing him on furlough. This is stated in the police report. Learned APP on instructions from Mr. S. P. Kale, Jailor Group II, Nashik Road Central Prison, who is present in the court, has informed us that the petitioner’s conduct in the prison is satisfactory. Therefore, there is no reason now to reject his application on apprehension that he may not come back to the prison. 4. It is pointed out to us that this court while releasing the petitioner on furlough vide its order dated 22/4/08 had directed the petitioner to furnish two sureties in the amount of Rs.10,000/- with a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, Nashik Road Central Prison. The petitioner was directed to report to Mahim Police Station on alternate day while on furlough at 10-30 a.m. in the morning. The respondents were directed to arrest the petitioner in case he fails to appear before the concerned police station. The petitioner was also directed to 3 furnish his address to the prison authorities. In our opinion, the same conditions may be put on the petitioner while releasing his on parole. 5. That the petitioner’s wife is unwell is not disputed. Hence the impugned order is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to release the petitioner on parole on above terms and conditions and such additional conditions as may be deemed fit and on his furnishing an acceptable surety. 6. Petition is disposed of. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)