SHIVAJI KISHAN GHUGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) A letter sent by the petitioner through jail has been registered as Criminal Writ Petition and consequent to registration of the said letter as Criminal Writ Petition we had appointed Miss. K.P.Mutatkar, as a Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. The limited grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the authorities have erroneously rejected his application for release on parole. In view of the limited challenge in the petition we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at the stage of admission.

(3.) An application came to be submitted by the petitioner, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life, seeking his release on parole on the ground of serious ill-ness of his mother. A report was called from the concerned Police authorities and in the report dated 3.8.2007 various grounds were stated and one of the ground was that an offence has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Basamba. An apprehension was also expressed in the report that in the event the petitioner is released on parole, he was likely to commit an offence or threaten and cause harm to the complainant and other witnesses who had been examined against him during trial. Petitioner had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and has undergone virtually 13 years of imprisonment. During the said period the petitioner has been released frequently either on parole or on furlough. In fact the report itself adverts that the petitioner has been released on furlough from 1.6.2007 to 16.6.2007 and had not committed any offence. Be that as it may, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, by the impugned order dated 22.8.2007 rejected the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole by relying on the report dated 3.8.2007.