spb/- 1 wp852-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 852 OF 2011 Ramrao Mohanraj Dengale ... Petitioner . V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.. ... Respondents. --- Mrs. I.M. Koparkar for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent -State. ----- CORAM : P. V. HARDAS & M.N.GILANI,JJ. DATE : 06th APRIL, 2011. P.C. 1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the authorities dated 14.02.2011, declining to grant extension of the parole leave. 3 It appears that since the wife of the petitioner was indisposed, the petitioner sought his release on parole and accordingly by order dated 05.01.2011 the petitioner was directed to be released on parole. The petitioner accordingly came to be released on parole on 09.01.2011. The parole leave was to expire on 07.02.2011 and the petitioner in normal spb/- 2 wp852-11.sxw circumstances ought to have surrendered on 07.02.2011. However, since the operation of the wife of the petitioner was postponed, the petitioner by an application dated 17.01.2011 sought extension of his parole leave. The said application of the petitioner came to be decided by order dated 14.02.2011 which is impugned in the present petition. 4 Perusal of the impugned order dated 14.02.2011 clearly reveals that the authorities have not examined genuineness / correctness of the reasons given by the petitioner for extension of the parole leave. Therefore, the said application came to be rejected purely on extraneous ground/consideration. According to us therefore, the aforesaid order, rejecting the application of the petitioner, is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner came to be admitted in the hospital on 17.02.2011 and came to be operated on 23.03.2011. It is stated that the petitioner is still in the hospital where he is being treated for his illness. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, states that the liberty may be granted to the petitioner to submit an application for further extension of parole leave, if available in law. 6 We accordingly allow writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to decide said application afresh according to law by granting liberty to the petitioner to apply for further extension, if available in law. The respondents to decide both the applications in accordance with law within two weeks on such submission spb/- 3 wp852-11.sxw of the application for further extension if any. 7 Rule is thus made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. [M.N.GILANI,J.] [P.V. HARDAS, J.]