1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1059 OF 2009 Arun s/o Ramchandra Mane, Age : 36 years, Convict No.3937, Open Prison, Paithan, Taluka Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT Miss Quazi Sadaf Sultana, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner; Mr S.V. Kurundkar, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16th December, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A communication sent by the petitioner through jail was registered as Criminal Writ Petition and we had accordingly appointed Advocate 2 Miss Quazi Sadaf Sultana as a Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. It appears that the petitioner was released on parole on account of serious ailment of his wife by virtue of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9.9.2009 in Criminal Writ Petition No.791 of 2009. The period for which the petitioner was released was of 15 days. It appears that immediately on his release on parole, the petitioner submitted an application dated 5.10.2009 pleading for extension of the parole leave on the ground of serious illness of his wife as well as extension of the period for submission of surety. According to the petitioner the original period of his parole leave has already expired but since the application submitted by the petitioner has not been decided, the petitioner has still not surrendered. The learned A.P.P. was not in a position to state before us whether the application submitted by the petitioner dated 5.10.2009 seeking extension of his parole leave as well as extension of the period for submission of surety has been decided. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition by directing the respondents to decide the aforesaid application in accordance with law and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. We make it very clear that we have refrained from making any observations in respect of the genuineness of the reason advanced by the petitioner for seeking extension of parole leave. 3 4. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to decide the application of the petitioner dated 5.10.2009, if the same is pending, in accordance with law and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 5. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/-. ( R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criwp1059.09