MRS. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for respondent.

2. Rule.

3. With the consent of "the parties heard forthwith.

4. The petitioner had preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his father. According to the petitioner, his father suffers from heart ailment. The said application for parole came to be rejected by order dated 25th May, 2011. Being aggrieved by the said fact, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that when the police conducted enquiry, they found the reason given by the petitioner i.e. illness of his father, to be genuine. Despite this fact, the petitioner has not been granted parole. The learned advocate for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court. in the case of Bhikhabhai Devshi vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1987 Gujarat 136 to contend that the object of granting parole are that the prisoner gets an opportunity to maintain continuity with his family life, to deal with the family matters, to maintain constructive hope and active interest in the life and to save a convict from the ill effects of continuously being in prison. The aims and objects which the learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out, are actually stated in the judgment only in relation to furlough and not in relation to parole. In the said decision, it is further observed. Furlough and parole have two different purposes. Parole is to be granted only on a sufficient cause such as cases of severe illness or death of any member of the prisoner's family or of his nearest relative or for other sufficient cause. Therefore, parole is not a matter of right and only when there is a sufficient and serious cause, the prisoner may be released on parole. Parole may be denied to a prisoner even when he makes out sufficient cause for release on parole if the competent authority is satisfied on valid grounds that release of a prisoner on parole would be against the interest of the society or the prison administration. For example, a prisoner who has once escaped or attempted to escape or who is likely to escape or has such means and resources, may be denied parole because under the Rules, the competent authority has discretion to grant or not to grant parole even when cause is shown. Therefore, comparison of release on parole and furlough is absolutely uncalled for.

6. It is well settled that grant of parole to the prisoner is not a right. It has been so observed by the Division Bench of this Court in para 5 of the decision in Prahlad D. Gajbhiye vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Mah.L.J. 1584 : 1994 Cri. L.J. 2555. Moreover, it is only in certain circumstances that a prisoner can be released on parole and even if the reason stated by the prisoner for grant of parole is found to be genuine, his case has to fall within the necessary criteria for grant of parole including favourable police report.

7. Mr. T.A. Mirza, the learned APP pointed out that on 1.8.2007 the petitioner was released on furlough for 14 days. In the said case, he ought to have surrendered on 15.8.2007, however, the petitioner did not report back to prison on 15.8.2007. The police had to eventually trace the petitioner, arrest him and bring back him to prison. There was a overstay of 1011 days on the part of the petitioner. When enquiry was conducted pursuant to the petitioner's application for parole, the fact that on earlier occasion the petitioner had over stayed for 1011 days was noticed. In addition, it was noticed that the petitioner has a brother i.e. Vishal Khandekar, who can take care of the father of the petitioner. Hence, on this ground, the application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected.

8. The petitioner by way of amendment has relied on the Annexure III - Medical Certificate dated 17.7.2011 to support the fact that the father of the petitioner is very sick. On going through the said medical certificate