1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 443 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 728 OF 2009 Mohammed Parvez Pyarekhan Shaikh ..Applicant (Orig. Accused ) versus The Divisional Commissioner Nashik Division, Nashik and Anr. ..Respondents (Orig. Respondents) Mrs. S.A. Dhamale for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1 We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 16th February, 2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, thereby rejecting the application submitted by the applicant for parole. The said order states that it is an appealable order and appeal lies with the State Government. Such an appeal was required to be filed within one week. 2 Our attention has been invited to the Medical Certificate issued by 2 Crti Care Multi Speciality Hospital and Research Centre, Andheri, Mumbai on 26th August, 2009, which speaks about medical treatment required for the applicant’s daughter on emergency basis. In fact almost 8 months' period has gone by after the said certificate was issued and the impugned order has been passed about 2 months back. No appeal has been filed by the applicant against the impugned order. Even otherwise the applicant is eligible to apply for furlough leave towards the end of this month. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with impugned order, when the appeal lies against the said order before the State Government as per the Parole and Furlough Rules 1959. 3 Hence we direct that in case the applicant prefers an appeal against the impugned order or he submits an application for Furlough leave, the same shall be decided by the competent authority as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of 2 weeks from its receipt. 4 The Application is disposed off accordingly. (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)