1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 403 OF 2010 *** Shri Sayed Gani Sayed Abdul Rahim Versus The State of Maharashtra. *** Smt. Ratnamala Mane, Advocate for the Appellant (appointed). *** 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. Petitioner seeks quashment of the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 8th February, 2010. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner points out the order Annexure-B. This order appears to have been passed by the competent authority on 8th February, 2010. It is so happened that the Petitioner, who is undergoing punishment, rendered by the competent Court, for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code has applied for parole leave on the ground of illness of his wife. 4. According to the petitioner, his wife is suffering from chronic pelvic inflammatory disease. His application has been turned down by the Respondents. On behalf of the 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Respondents, learned A.P.P. has pointed out affidavit in reply. This reply has been sworn in by Mr. Natha Paradhi, Tahsildar working in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. Grievance is raised that the Petitioner, earlier, was released on parole leave, however, overstayed. Page 15 is the chart annexed along with the affidavit in reply, filed on behalf of the Respondent/ State. Around eight instances have been mentioned in this chart. We have seen the range of alleged overstaying by the petitioner. It is from 1 day to 428 days. This account of grant of parole in favour of the petitioner and alleged overstaying appears to be from 30th September, 1997 till 1st July, 2009. In view of the parole and furlough leave rules, petitioner has also suffered deduction in permissible remissions. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, points out two medical certificates. We have seen both the medical certificates, which are on record. Taking into account the submissions made on behalf of the parties, in our view, case for grant of parole leave is established. Impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside. We are not laying 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. down calendar of the parole leave as the order can be passed by the respondents on due compliance and in accordance with the parole and furlough rules. We have seen the police report from Superintendent of Police, Nanded which stands in favour of the present petitioner. 6. Writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned order is quashed and set aside. We direct the Respondents to pass appropriate order granting parole leave in favour of the Petitioner in accordance with the parole and furlough leave Rules and on due compliance by the petitioner. Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. 7. We quantify Rs.2,500/- towards professional fees to the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:04/05/2010. ans/403