1 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 1053 OF 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 1053 OF 2011 *** Mohan S/o Gulab Chavan, Age: 24 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Verul Tanda, Tq. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. Copy to be served on P.P. of High Court of Judicature, Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The State Superintendent of Central Jail, Harsul, at Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad ... RESPONDENTS *** Mrs. Sharada P. Chate, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State Authorities. *** CORAM: S. B. DESHMUKH & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED:- 19th DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Deshmukh, J.]: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of parties. 3. In view of earlier order, learned A.P.P. Mr. Pulkundwar makes available original file maintained 2 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 1053 OF 2011 by the competent authority. 4. The present petitioner/ prisoner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.616 of 2011. The said writ petition, after hearing both the parties, has been disposed of by this Court [Coram: P.V.Hardas & A.V.Potdar, JJ.] by the order passed on 12th August, 2011, while disposing of writ petition NO. 616 of 2011, it was observed that the prayer made by the petitioner on 14th June, 2011 for release on parole is pending and that is how the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the Respondents that they shall decide the application dated 14th June, 2011 or any other application, if pending, within four weeks. In view of disposal of the said writ petition, petitioner's application, which was pending before the competent authority, has been disposed of. Order has been communicated to the petitioner/ prisoner dated 14th October, 2011. It appears from this order, that the petitioner has applied for grant of parole of 30 days on 5th of September, 2011. Said application was received by the competent authority on 6th September, 2011. Parole leave was sought for by the petitioner/ prisoner on account of illness of his wife Jaya. 3 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 1053 OF 2011 According to the petitioner, his wife was advised surgical intervention for appendicitis. Report was called for by the competent authority from the Police Commissioner, Aurangabad. In the report, contention raised by the petitioner, regarding illness of his wife and requirement of surgical intervention for appendicitis has not been disputed. However, it is mentioned by the competent authority in the order of rejection that other medical investigations undergone by wife of present petitioner have not been clarified and, therefore, competent authority was not satisfied and did not grant parole. Second ground which was weighed with the competent authority is the adverse police report. Police Commissioner, Aurangabad had communicated that there is likelihood of breach of peace in case of grant of parole. Apprehension has been expressed by the police authority that petitioner may not surrender after expiry of parole. In our opinion, rejection of the parole leave by the competent authority is per-se illegal. Firstly, with the assistance of learned counsel before the Court, we have considered the certificate placed on record. It is a certificate 4 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 1053 OF 2011 issued by the Medical Officer, Rural Health Centre, Khultabad, a Government dispensary. In this certificate surgical intervention for appendicitis is advised. The certificate pertains to wife of petitioner Smt. Jaya, the fact which is not disputed by the Respondent. Another ground for rejection is adverse police report. There is no material which we could notice from original file showing that in case of grant of parole there is likelihood of breach of peace by the present Petitioner. The apprehension expressed by the respondent that, in case of grant of parole leave to the petitioner, the petitioner may not surrender after expiry of leave, does not impress with us only for the reason that the parole leave is always granted on certain terms and conditions and apart from consequences of breach of terms and conditions, the prisoner concerned has to undergo other penalties and proceedings which can be initiated and imposed upon the petitioner by the competent authorities. All and all, according to us, the order of rejection per-se is illegal, requires to be quashed and set aside. Petitioner is entitled for parole leave. However, we are 5 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 1053 OF 2011 directing Respondent/ competent authority to pass appropriate order releasing the petitioner on parole on usual terms and conditions and on furnishing appropriate bond. 5. Writ petition accordingly is allowed in above terms and disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 6. The appropriate order, granting parole leave, is to be passed by the competent authority within two weeks from today. Learned A.P.P. to furnish copy of this order of learned competent authority. 7. Authentic copy of this order is permitted to the parties as per usual procedure. 7. In view of final disposal of the criminal writ petition itself, criminal application No.3103 of 2011 does not survive any further and the same also stands disposed of. [A. M. THIPSAY, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:19/12/2011. ans/1053 6 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 1053 OF 2011 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 1053 OF 2011 Date of decision: 19th DECEMBER, 2011. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. B. DESHMUKH. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A. M. THIPSAY. Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No fair copy of the judgment? Whether this case involves a substantial... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE