Cri.W.P.No.346 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.346 OF 2011 Madhukar s/o Dhanaji Galphade, Age 32 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Convict No.C-6526, Aurangabad Central Prison (Open), Aurangabad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Commissioner of Police, Jalgaon 3. The Deputy Inspector General (Prison), Central Prison, Aurangabad 4. The Superintendent of Prisons, Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mrs M.D.Thube-Mhase, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Mr S.D.Kaldate, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 7th June 2011 Cri.W.P.No.346 of 2011 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail was registered as a Criminal Writ Petition. By virtue of the aforesaid communication, the petitioner took exception to the order of the respondent dated 22.2.2011 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for his release on parole. This Court had accordingly appointed Advocate Mrs M.D.Thube-Mhase to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. The learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner has filed a comprehensive writ petition taking exception to the order impugned therein. 3. According to the petitioner his son was indisposed and, therefore, the petitioner sought his release on parole. The petitioner has alleged that he has undergone a substantial part of sentence and has been extremely diligent in observing the orders by which the petitioner had been released on the earlier occasion. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is self destructive inasmuch as though the petitioner had not placed on record the certificate issued by the medical practitioner, yet the impugned order states that the petitioner was likely to commit breach of peace in the event he was Cri.W.P.No.346 of 2011 3 released. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order. 4. The impugned order initially reproduces the contents of the Police report and in conclusion the impugned order observes that the petitioner had not placed on record the certificate in respect of the seriousness of the ailment of his son. The authority, therefore, has expressed its inability to decide whether the seriousness of the ailment was such as warranted the release of the petitioner on parole. According to us, in the peculiar facts of the present case it was necessary for the petitioner to have placed on record the medical certificate in respect of the seriousness as well as the gravity of the ailment. According to us, such an opportunity cannot be denied to the petitioner. 5. We accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner to submit the medical certificate in respect of ailment/illness of his son. This be done by the petitioner within two weeks from today. We further direct the respondents-authorities to decide the application of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, within two weeks of the submission of the medical certificate by the petitioner and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Cri.W.P.No.346 of 2011 4 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. 7. We quantify the fees payable to Mrs M.D.Thube-Mhase, learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One thousand five hundred). 8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor undertakes to communicate this order to the respondents. 9. Copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar of this Court be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/346.11criwp)