1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 286 OF 2011 (Samadhan Sukhdeo Sabe vs. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R.M. Daruwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri D.B. Yengal, APP for the respondents. ….. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. MAY 04, 2011. Heard Shri R.M. Daruwala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yengal, learned APP for the respondent. The petitioner has preferred this application for parole on the ground that his house is in dilapidated condition. The said application came to be rejected on 10.01.2011 on the ground that when the petitioner was earlier released on furlough on 12.04.2008 he did not report back in time. The petitioner absconded and he had to be traced by the police, arrested and brought back to prison. Hence, it is apprehended that if the petitioner is granted parole, he would again abscond. On this ground, the application is rejected. Looking to the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the apprehension in the mind of the concerned 2 authorities is without any basis. Hence, we cannot find any error on the part of the authorities in rejecting the application for parole. No case is made out for interference. Petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner prefers a fresh application for parole, the same may be considered and dealt with in accordance with law. The fees of Shri Daruwala, Advocate (appointed) is quantified at Rs.750/- and the same be paid to him within a period of three months. A copy of this order be communicated to the petitioner, who is in Central Prison, Amravati. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.