ORAL JUDGMENT (Per D.D.Sinha, J) :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of Dr. Mrs.R.K.Shastry, Adv. for the Petitioner and Mr. T.A.Mirza, A.P.P. for the Respondents.

2. This Criminal Writ Petition is directed against the order dt. 24.4.2007 passed by the competent Authority whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of parole leave came to be rejected on the basis of the adverse police report in view of the Rule 4 (4) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 hereafter referred to as .the 1959 Rules.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner forwarded the application for grant of parole leave on account of ill-ness of his son namely Sandeep Sahebrao Juwari through the Superintendent of Prison to the competent Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 1.12.2006. It is contended that, at the relevant time, the son of the petitioner has suffered fracture of right hand and since he was in need of proper medical help, the petitioner had applied for grant of parole leave in view of Rule 19 of the 1959 Rules. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the ailment of son of the petitioner was of a serious nature and the petitioner, in view of provisions of Rule 19, was entitled to be released on parole leave, however, the competent Authority took more than four months to decide the application of the petitioner and finally rejected the same vide impugned order dt. 24.4.2007. It is submitted that though the son of the petitioner somehow managed to recover from the ailment without any help of the petitioner within four months, however, this has not only caused great prejudice to the petitioner but the delay in deciding the application by the competent Authority has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

3. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application dt. 1.12.2006 submitted by the petitioner for grant of parole leave was accompanied by Certificate dt. 13.9.2006 issued by Dr.Vilas Daghe; however, the procedure undertaken by the Authorities took long time and therefore, the purpose and cause for which the application for grant of parole leave was made was frustrated.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the impugned order is completely silent in respect of ailment of son of the petitioner and the application of the petitioner for grant of furlough leave came to be rejected only on the basis of adverse police report in view of Rule 4 (4) of the 1959 Rules, which further shows non-application of mind by the competent authority in respect of the grounds mentioned by the petitioner in the application for grant of parole leave.

5. Mr. T.A.Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that though the application of the petitioner for grant of parole leave is dt. 1.12.2006 and was received by the competent Authority through proper channel, however, medical certificate dt. 13.9.2006 issued by Dr. Vilas Dhage was not annexed with the application, as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner in this regard are not sustainable.

6. The Additional Public Prosecutor has further contended that, on the basis of verification of the concerned record, it is revealed that the only application which was received by the competent Authority was application dt. 19.2.2007 and medical certificate dt. 6.1.2007 was annexed with the said application. It is submitted that the medical certificate shows that the son of the petitioner namely Sandeep Sahebrao Juware is required to undergo regular operation for removal of appendix alongwith cyst. The Additional Public Prosecutor further states that, as per the provisions of Rule 4 (4), the police report is obtained by the competent Authority and since the same was adverse to the petitioner, the competent Authority has re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document