JUDGMENT - MOHITE R.S., J.:---Heard. Rule, by consent it is returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner had applied for parole and his application was rejected on the ground that on two earlier occasions, the applicant had not surrendered within time. The contention on behalf of the State, is that in 1996 the petitioner was granted furlough but he had surrendered late by 585 days. Similarly in the year 2002 the petitioner was granted parole and at that time also he surrendered late by 34 days. However, the learned A.P.P. for the respondents fairly conceded that by an order dated 3-7-2002 the petitioner had been granted furlough by this Court for the reasons of illness of the son of present petitioner. It is observed in para 6 of the judgment that the illness of the petitioners son pertains to the kidney and the son is suffering from Nephrosis Syndrome. It is further conceded that on this count the petitioner had availed of the furlough and surrendered in time. It is admitted that for the earlier lapses, the petitioner had been punished, in accordance with the law.

3. In the overall circumstances of the case, since on the last occasion the petitioner surrendered in time and since it is the contention of the petitioner that his son aged about 12 years is seriously ill, and on humanitarian grounds, I am inclined to grant parole to the petitioner.

4. In the circumstance, the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati refusing parole to the petitioner is quashed and set aside and it is directed that the petitioner be released on parole for a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of release, subject to the Rules.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

-----

Click Here to Read the rest of this document