1 6 wp616.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.616 OF 2026 Sonu @ Swapnil Madhav Wakde Vs. The Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Maharashtra State, Pune and ors Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court' s or Judge' s Order Coram, appearances, Court' s Orders or directions and Registrar' s order Ms R.A.Singh, Counsel for the Petitioner. Mrs.Nandita Tripathi, APP for Respondents/State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & RAJ D.WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 17th AUGUST, 2026. 1. Heard learned counsel Ms R.A.Singh for the petitioner and learned APP Mrs.Nandita Tripathi for respondents/State. 2. The petitioner, who is a convicted prisoner suffering sentence of life imprisonment for offences under Sections 120, 302, and 506 of the IPC, and who has suffered the imprisonment of more than 9 years, has approached this court seeking quashing and setting aside orders impugned passed by respondent No.2 – The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Eastern Division, Nagpur and respondent No.1 – 2026:BHC-NAG:10779-DB 2 6 wp616.26.odt The Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Service, Maharashtra State. The aforesaid orders impugned in the petition were passed on the basis of application submitted by him for grant of parole leave. He had applied for grant of parole leave on the basis of illness of his wife and necessary treatment directed by treating doctor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid contingency is covered by Rule 12(1) of Chapter- III of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024 (the said Rules). On submission of the application by the petitioner for grant of parole leave, respondent No.3 – The Superintendent, Morshi Open Jail, District Amravati had called for various reports. The Medical Officer of the Sub District Hospital, Chimur, District Chandrapur had substantiated the aforesaid claim of illness of the wife by the petitioner. The Superintendent of the Prisons had also given a positive report in favour of the petitioner thereby pointing out that when the petitioner had been released six times on 3 6 wp616.26.odt furlough leave and four times on parole leave, he reported back on time after expiry of the aforesaid furlough and parole leave. However, respondent No.2 rejected the aforesaid application on 21.2.2026 on the ground that the aforesaid “illness is not serious”. 4. Being aggrieved by such rejection by the Sanctioning Authority, the petitioner approached the Inspector General of Prisons by filing an appeal. On 4.6.2026, the Appellate Authority has also rejected the aforesaid appeal. However, the Appellate Authority had called for report from the District Civil Surgeon, District Hospital Chandrapur regarding illness of the wife of the petitioner. Perusal of the report reveals and confirms that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from “Adenomyosis and Uterine Fibroids”. However, the doctor opined that the aforesaid illness can be serious if surgery is advised by treating doctor. However, the Appellate Authority, in spite of such report, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner and consequently the 4 6 wp616.26.odt application for grant of parole leave on the ground that the aforesaid “illness is not serious”. 5. In our considered opinion, findings of the Sanctioning Authority, so also the Appellate Authority, are perverse in view of the fact that The Medical Officer of the Sub District Hospital, Chimur, District Chandrapur, on 13.5.2026, after examining the wife of the petitioner, had given a specific opinion that “the patient is Planned and Posted for Thyomectomy.” This opinion suggests surgical removal of the aforesaid “Uterine Fibroids”, which falls within the category of “serious illness” as opined by the District Civil Surgeon, District Hospital Chandrapur and reflects in the order of the Appellate Authority. 6. In view of the above, we are of a considered opinion that the aforesaid illness of the wife of the petitioner falls within the definition of “serious illness” of spouse as mentioned in Rule 12(1) of the said Rules and, therefore, the application praying for parole leave by the petitioner 5 6 wp616.26.odt should have been granted. Accordingly, we pass following order: ORDER (1) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. (2) The petitioner shall be released on parole leave for a period of 20 days from the date of his release from the jail. (3) He shall report in the evening of 20th day before the Superintendent, Morshi Open Jail, District Amravati. (4) Respondent No.3 – The Superintendent, Morshi Open Jail, District Amravati, while releasing the petitioner on parole leave, shall impose all usual necessary conditions as prescribed. Petition stands disposed of. [JUDGE] [JUDGE] !! BrWankhede !! Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 20/08/2026 10:47:26