1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1056 OF 2009 Chandu @ Chandrakant Karbhari Tribhuvan ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Shri. M.P. Gude, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner. Shri. V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 18th December, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A letter sent by the petitioner through jail taking exception to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated 29.8.2009, rejecting the application of the petitioner for his release on parole, came to be registered as criminal writ petition. We have accordingly appointed Shri. M.P. Gude to represent the petitioner in this 2 petition before us. 3. The petitioner had applied for his release on parole by his application dated 23.6.2009 which was received by the respondent on 25.6.2009. The reason for release on parole was that the mother of the petitioner was ill. The respondent accordingly called for police report and in the police report, it was stated that in the event the petitioner was released on parole, the petitioner was likely to abscond and was also likely to threaten the complainant and the other witnesses. The Divisional Commissioner mechanically accepted the ipse dixit of the police officer and accordingly by the impugned order, rejected the application of the petitioner. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner had earlier been released on furlough leave on two occasions, on account of orders passed by this Court. Once the petitioner had been granted parole again under the order passed by this Court. The respondent in his affidavit has not stated that when the petitioner was released on earlier occasions or the petitioner had in any manner threatened the complainant or the prosecution witnesses or had not reported to jail within the time specified. In such circumstances therefore, according to us, mere ipse dixit of the police officer that the petitioner was likely to threaten the complainant and the prosecution witnesses and that the petitioner was likely to abscond, out not have been accepted. Any subjective decision should be based on the some 3 objective material. In the present case, there is total paucity of any objective material indicating that the petitioner would either abscond or would threaten the prosecution witnesses or the complainant. The application of the petitioner has not been rejected on the ground that the ailment of the mother of the petitioner did not justify his release on parole. 5. In that light of the matter therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition. We, accordingly, allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the authorities to release the petitioner on parole for the period he had applied for on such terms and conditions which the authorities may impose on the petitioner. 6. Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to Advocate Shri. M.P. Gude appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs. 2,000/-. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.] ssc/criwp1056.09