1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.542 OF 2009 Muktaram Sitaram Shinde ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ----- Shri A.R. Borulkar, Advocate for the applicant Shri K.B. Choudhari, A.P.P. for the respondent ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 2nd September, 2009. ORAL ORDER (PER PATIL, J.): 1. The petitioner has filed the application requesting to release him on parole leave on account of death of his brother which took place on 30.5.2009 at Parbhani. The said application was filed by the applicant on 11.6.2009 through registry of this Court. We had issued notice to the respondent. Learned A.P.P. 2 today places on record the copy of communication made to him by the Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and the copy of order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 2.9.2009, rejecting the request of the petitioner for relasing him on parole leave. The ground stated in the order is that when the petitioner was released earlier on leave, he surrendered late by 525 days and on second occasion the petitioner was released on parole and surendered after seven years, 6 months and 16 days. He was absconding and the police had to arrest him and produce him before the jail authorities. Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner was of the opinion that if the applicant is released again, he may abscond. The police report was adverse according to the Divisional Commissioner. 2. This Court issued notice to the respondent on 13.8.2009. The Divisional Commissioner passed order on 2.9.2009. Even otherwise, according to the petitioner himself his brother died on 30.5.2009. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served now for considering the said grievance of the petitioner. 3. Considering the above record of the petitioner, we find that it is disturbing to note that the petitioner twice overstayed his leave period and on one occasion the petitioner surrendered 3 late by more than seven years after his release and he had to be arrested by the police and produced before the jail authorities. This conduct of the petitioner itself has to be looked into seriously. We find that cases of over-staying the leave period or not surrendering at all for number of years after the expiry of leave period are on rise. We, therefore, do not find any error in the view adopted by the Divisional Commissioner. The Criminal Writ Petition is rejected. 4. The Legal Services Authority to pay the fee of Mr. Borulkar, learned counsel who was appointed on behalf of the petitioner. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] fmp/cwp542.09