1wp169-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.169 OF 2010 Shankar Baburao Shevale. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Shekhar S. Bhise, Advocate appointed for the petitioner. Mr.Y.M. Nakhawa, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 23RD MARCH, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this Petition, through jail, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 2.12.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik rejecting his application for parole. We have perused the impugned order. The petitioner’s application has been rejected solely on the ground that when the police made enquiries with the complainant and the witnesses in the case in which the petitioner was convicted, they strongly objected for his release on parole. 3. From perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner sought parole on the ground of his mother’s illness. He has also produced on record the medical certificate in support of this ground. Admittedly the petitioner was on bail during pendency of the 1wp169-10 2 trial and there are no allegations of having misused the liberty. In view thereof, in our opinion, merely because the complainant and the witnesses opposed release of the petitioner on parole, it would not be proper to reject his application on this ground. As a matter of fact, we failed to understand as to what prompted the police to make enquiry with the complainant and the witnesses. No complainant or witness would ever give consent for release of the convict on parole or furlough. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner never misused the liberty during pendency of the trial and considering that the concerned authority has accepted the surety suggested by the petitioner, we are inclined to allow this Petition. Hence, the following order: [i] The order dated 2.12.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik is set aside, and the application of the petitioner seeking parole is restored to file; [ii]The Divisional Commissioner shall decide the said application afresh within a period of four weeks from today. [iii]The learned A.P.P. to communicate this order to the Divisional Commissioner within a period of one week from today. [iv]Office to communicate this order to the petitioner through jail forthwith. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)