1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 210 OF 2010 Jyadvsing Daulatsing Jarhade ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Miss. Manjusha S. Jagtap, (appointed) advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM: S.B. DESHMUKH & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 23RD APRIL, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 We heard learned counsel Miss. Manjusha Jagtap, (appointed) for the petitioner and Mr. Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3 The petitioner seeks parole leave. The request made by the prisoner petitioner for parole leave has been rejected by the respondent. The ground raised by the petitioner for seeking parole leave is the ailment of his wife, who is resident of village Lalwadi, Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna. The application made by the petitioner is rejected by the Divisional 2 Commissioner, Aurangabad. Copy of the order is annexed at Exh. “D’. The application is rejected on two grounds. Firstly, the present petitioner is resident of village Lalwadi, which is around five kilometers away from village Kusali, Tq. Badnapur, from where one Swarupsing Ramsing Balawade has shown his willingness to stand as guarantor for the parole leave of the petitioner. Apprehension expressed is that if the parole leave is granted, the petitioner may visit his native place i.e. Lalwadi and commit crime and/or threaten the witnesses. The second ground for rejection of application is that out of two medical certificates, one is fabricated. 4 The medical certificates placed on record are dated 5.1.2009 and 15.10.2009. In para 4 of the affidavit, a grievance is raised that the later certificate is fabricated. We have perused both the certificates with care and caution. We find it difficult to accept the stand taken by the respondent. It appears that same ailment which is mentioned in the earlier certificate has been mentioned in the later certificate. We have also considered the ailment certified by the Medical Officer. It is stated that ailment is not of serious in nature. 5 In our view, valid guarantor is available, who has shown his willingness earlier also. Admittedly, Earlier also, the petitioner was granted parole leave. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner misused the earlier parole leave. In this view of the matter, we 3 are inclined to decide the application favourably and to quash and set aside the order impugned in this petition. However, we are not fixing the time schedule of the parole leave. It is for the authorities concerned to pass appropriate order according to the Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules. 6 In the result, we quash and set aside the order dated 21.1.2010, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, which is impugned in this petition. We direct the authorities concerned to release the prisoner petitioner on parole leave. We also direct the said authorities to fix the time schedule for such leave in accordance with provisions of Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules. 7 Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 8 We quantify the legal fees of learned advocate Ms. Manjusha Jagtap, appointed by us to represent the cause of the petitioner, at Rs. 2000/-. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/ 4