1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 35 OF 2009 Conceisao Fernandes, Prisoner No. 140, presently lodged in Central Jail Aguada, Aguada Goa, through his next friend Shri Rosario Fernandes, r/o Fatorda. .... Petitioner. V e r s u s 1. State Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Alto Porvorim Goa. 2. Inspector General of Prison Collectorate Building (North), Panaji Goa. 3. Superintendent of Prisons, Central Jail Aguada, Aguada Goa. ... Respondents. Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Coram :- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date :- 17 th June, 2009. 2 ORAL ORDER : Heard Ms. Asha Dessai on behalf of the petitioner and Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has been ordered to be released on parole by order dated 15.12.2008 but has been unable to obtain the benefit of the said order because according to the petitioner he is unable to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- or give cash security in the like amount, as stipulated in the said order. 2. The petitioner is undergoing sentence under Section 302 of IPC for life imprisonment. Earlier the petitioner was released on parole on four different occasions and on each of the said occasions the amount of bond fixed was Rs.10,000/- and it is only this time the petitioner has been ordered to be released on execution of a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and in lieu thereof give cash security in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The amount of bond appears to have been fixed pursuant to the decision taken by the Chief Secretary on 26.3.2008. In similar situation, it was observed by this Court as follows : 3 “3. It appears that the bond amount of Rs. 1 lac has been fixed in view of the policy decision taken on 26.3.2008 pursuant to the directions of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 5/2008. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was earlier released on furlough by order dated 30.9.2003 for a period of 30 days and on completion of the said period the petitioner had returned to jail. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had executed a bond of Rs.10,000/- while being released on furlough by order dated 30.9.2003. If that is so, there is no reason why, the amount of bond to be executed this time had to be enhanced. It is also submitted that the petitioner's case is not covered by the said decision. Being so, it would be in the interest of justice that the amount of the bond required to be executed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 6.6.2008 is reduced to the same amount of the bond executed by him when the petitioner was granted furlough by order dated 30.9.2003”. 3. In case the petitioner had earlier returned to the prison on four different occasions and when the prisoner had executed a bond of Rs. 10,000/-, there is no reason as to why in this case the bond has been enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Consequently, the petition deserves to be succeed. Order dated 15.12.2008 is hereby 4 modified and the petitioner is directed to be released on parole upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- or cash security in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Inspector General of Prison, and other conditions of the said order remaining unchanged. Petition is allowed on the above terms. N. A. BRITTO, J. at*