1 cr-wp-1194-11 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1194 OF 2011 Parshuram Ganpat Nalavade ] Age 24 years, Occ: Nil ] Residing at Omkar Buliding ] Lokmanya Chawl, Sadguru Nagar, ] Devipada, Borivali (E) ] Mumbai-400 066 ] (Now confined at Nasik Road, ] Central Prison, Nasik Road, ] having Prisoner No. C-7045) ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra ] 2. The Superintendent, ] Nasik Road Central Prison, ] Nasik Road. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, ] Nasik Division, Nasik Road, ..Respondents .... Mr. N.N.Gawankar Advocate i/b Mr. Arfan Sait Advocate for Petitioner Ms. S.V.Gajare Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND M.N.GILANI, JJ. DATED : MAY 02, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER P.V.HARDAS, J.] : 1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of 2 cr-wp-1194-11 admission. 2 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondents, dated 17.9.2010, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner seeking his release on parole. The principal reason which is ascribed by the respondents for rejecting the application of the petitioner for his release on parole is that in the event the petitioner was released on parole, the petitioner would likely to be a terror in the locality. The respondents have also vaguely referred to the fact that while the petitioner had been released on bail during trial, he had committed an offence punishable under Sections 324 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, despite this, the petitioner came to be released on furlough in February, 2010. In such circumstances therefore, according to us the aforesaid ground cannot be pressed into aid by the respondents. However, the learned A.P.P. urges before us that there are other grounds for rejecting the application of the petitioner which unfortunately are not reflected in the impugned order. 3 In that light of the matter we quash and set aside the order and remit the matter back to the respondents-authorities for deciding the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. The 3 cr-wp-1194-11 respondents-authorities should not be influenced by the order rejecting the application of the petitioner earlier. We further direct the authorities to decide the application of the petitioner afresh within four weeks from today. Learned A.P.P. undertakes to communicate this order to the respondents. 4 Rule made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ M.N.GILANI, J. ] [ P.V.HARDAS, J. ]