1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.183/2008 [Shivaji Ramaji Sonwane .vrs. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and another] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mrs. S.P. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the respondents. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ DATED : JULY 1, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the respondents/State. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 17.3.2001 and was tried for the offences under MCOC Act. By judgment dated 30.10.2007, he was convicted and since then he is in prison. According to him, since the date of his arrest, he was never released on furlough leave. He has also been deprived of the parole leave. He, therefore, prays that he be released on parole leave. Along with the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the order dated 7.6.2008 passed by the competent authority is produced. It shows that the reason 2 putforth by the petitioner about serious illness of his wife is genuine. There is nobody to look after his wife. However, nobody is prepared to remain as surety for the petitioner and on that count, the petitioner's application for parole came to be rejected. Under Rule 28 r/w 10 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 conditions of release on furlough/parole are prescribed. One of the conditions is that the convict has to execute P.R. Bond or to give cash security and also a surety executing a bond. In the present case, since nobody is prepared to execute surety bond, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected by the competent authority. As such no fault can be found with the impugned order and the order cannot be interfered with. 3. While disposing of the petition, we would like to observe that in case somebody is prepared to stand as surety for the petitioner for executing a bond, the petitioner may be released on parole if the reason of serious illness of his wife is in existence. 4. The fees of the counsel appointed for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.750/-. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande