{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.679 OF 2010 Dadarao s/o Baburao Kadam Age-Major (Prisoner) R/o Presnt at Central Prison Aurangabad Tq-Kandhar Dist-Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Inspector General of Prisons, State of Maharashtra, Pune-1 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Harsool, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Ms.Shobha Adkine, Advocate for the petitioner (appointed) Mr. K.B.Chaudhari, Addl.P.P. For respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 14th September 2010 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 admission. {2} 2. A communication sent by the petitioner, through jail, came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and we had accordingly appointed Advocate Ms.Shobha Adkine, as counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns order dated 19.05.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner on 11.02.2010 seeking his release on parole. 3. The petitioner had submitted an application seeking his release on parole on the ground of ailment of his wife. It appears that the petitioner is aged about 82 years and has undergone imprisonment of about 22 years. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The application submitted by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted medical certificate regarding the ailment of his wife and that the petitioner was in a habit of surrendering late, after his release either on parole or furlough. The third ground, which is ascribed for rejecting the application of the petitioner, is that the petitioner, after release on parole, was likely to affect the public peace and tranquility and was likely to commit some offence. {3} 5. It appears that the petitioner had been released on parole and furlough on earlier occasions and from the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it does not appear that the petitioner had committed any offence or had threatened any person. The petitioner, on three occasions, had reported late, but had been released on parole or on furlough on subsequent occasions. Thus, the late surrendering of the petitioner was not used as a ground for rejecting his applications earlier. The aforesaid ground, therefore, in our opinion, could not be made use of at this time. The police report indicates that the petitioner had submitted medical certificate regarding ailment of his wife. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 6. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct that the petitioner be released on parole for such period as the authorities consider it appropriate and on such terms and conditions, which the authorities deem fit and proper. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Fees payable to the counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner are quantified at Rs.1500/- [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp679-10