JUDGMENT :

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.

2. Heard Mr. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Yagnik, the learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State. Mr. Talekar invites our attention to Exhibit ‘L’ (Page 171) of the compilation of the Writ Petition and submits that the application filed by the petitioner to release him on Covid-19 parole has been rejected on legally unsustainable grounds. It is submitted that merely because the petitioner was not earlier released once or twice on furlough or parole, the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on Covid-19 parole should not have been rejected. In support of his submission, he relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Writ Petition ASDB-LD-VC No. 65 of 2020 (Milind Ashok Patil and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others).

3. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that in case the petitioner files a fresh application, the respondent authorities will consider the same on its own merits.

4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the l