Judgment : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr. T.A. Mirza waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Rule 25 of the Prisons [Bombay Furlough & Parole Rules, 1959, and argued that there is a discretion in the authority to extend the parole for a period of ninety days in all and, therefore, there is failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of the authority by passing the impugned order refusing to grant extension of parole, when statutorily there is a power in the authority to do so. According to him, this has resulted into miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, as he is being denied extension of parole when Rule 25 of the said Rules specifically provides for it. 3. In opposition to the Writ Petition, learned APP Mr. Mirza submitted that the mother of the petitioner, aged about 52 years, as verified by the Police Department, is not suffering from any aliment, as alleged. According to him, the petitioners mother is cured of ailments suffered by her earlier and, therefore, there was no need to extend the parole. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. Heard. Perused the record. In para 5 of the Affidavit-in-Reply, there is a specific averment about the verification done by the Police Department in respect of the health of mother of the petitioner. Para 3 of the Affidavit-in-Reply gives details of grant of parole. The learned APP orally supplied additional information to this Court in that context. The petitioner had applied for parole leave on 24th January, 2013, which application was received by the Office of Divisional Commissioner on 5th February, 2013. The police report dated 5th June, 2013 was received on 7th June, 2013, and the petitioner was actually released from jail upon grant of parole on 6th September, 2013 till 13th September, 2013. By order dated 17th September, 2013, extension of parole for seven days was granted. By another order dated 24th September, 2013, second extension of parole for ten days was granted. The total period of parole came to thirty-one days. Thereafter, by order dated 5th October, 2013, third extension for seven days was again granted, with a stipulation that the parole would not be extended any further. By another order dated 24th September, 2013, second extension of parole for ten days was granted. The total period of parole came to thirty-one days. Thereafter, by order dated 5th October, 2013, third extension for seven days was again granted, with a stipulation that the parole would not be extended any further. However, the petitioner again applied for extension of parole and, thus, on 12th October, 2013, his application was rejected. 5. The petitioner in the present case was convicted by the Trial Court for a serious charge of rape and murder of a minor girl, and was awarded death sentence, which was confirmed by this Court. The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence into a sentence for life and he is, thus, undergoing imprisonment for life. The petitioner belongs to Nagpur and he is lodged in Nagpur Central Prison. Obviously, in the jail, his relatives and friends meet him on regular basis. This Court has observed that large number of convicts undergoing sentence for life imprisonment from this area are lodged in Nagpur Central Prison despite confirmation of their sentence to life imprisonment by the final Court. It is not known as to how majority of the convicts undergoing life imprisonment from this region arc being lodged in Nagpur Central Prison, and not in other Central Jails of the State. That apart, as stated earlier, these convicts being at Nagpur, their relatives and friends meet them regularly in the prison. Despite this position, the provision of parole seems to have been misused as in the instant case which is clear from the averments in paragraph 5 and relevant portion of paragraph 6 of the Affidavit dated 19th November, 2013 filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, which are quoted below:- "5. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed Medical Certificate dated 4th October, 2013 of Dr. S.R. Chaterjee which reveals that mother of the petitioner is suffering from hypertension with debility and the Doctor has advised for ECG. Thus, from the Medical Certificate it reveals that the mother of the petitioner is not suffering from serious ailment and hence presence of present petitioner is not necessary. It is submitted that in the report dated 4th June, 2013, it has been specifically mentioned that mother of the present petitioner is not a serious patient. Thus, from the Medical Certificate it reveals that the mother of the petitioner is not suffering from serious ailment and hence presence of present petitioner is not necessary. It is submitted that in the report dated 4th June, 2013, it has been specifically mentioned that mother of the present petitioner is not a serious patient. So also it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner is having elder brother to take care of his mother. Despite of this fact on humanitarian ground the petitioner has been released on parole leave and the same was extended from time to time total for 31 days. Thus, considering the above said circumstances the application for extension of parole leave was rightly rejected by the answering respondent by its order dated 12th October, 2013." "6. ....................................... On the contrary, the Medical Certificates dated 4th October, 2013 shows that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from Syst hypertension with debility which is a common ailment nowadays. The contention made in the petition that the petitioner is require to arrange money for further medical treatment of his mother is denied by the answering respondent for the obvious reason that in the application dated 5th October, 2013 the petitioner had submitted that his father is a Govt. servant. ....." 6. Perusal of the above facts clearly show that the extensions of parole granted from time to time as aforesaid on three occasions were not at all warranted. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to Rule 19, as it stood under Notification No. PAR 4582/1/PRS-2 dated 21st November, 1989, which is quoted below:- "19. When a prisoner may be released on parole :- A prisoner may be released on parole for such period not exceeding thirty days, at a time, as the Competent Authority referred to in Rule 18, in its discretion may order, in cases of serious illness, or death of nearest relative such as mother, father, sister, brother, children, spouse of the prisoner, or in case of natural calamity such as house collapse, floods, fire. No such parole or extension of parole shall be granted without obtaining a police report in all cases except in the case of death of his nearest relatives mentioned above; Provided that a prisoner shall not be released on parole for one year after expiry of his last parole except case of death of his nearest relatives mentioned above." 7. Rule 19 was substituted by Notification No. JLM. 1006/CR.249/PRS-2 dated 7th February, 2007 as under:- "19. When a prisoner may be released on parole.- A prisoner will be released on parole for such period as the Competent Authority referred to in rule 18 in its discretion may order, in case of serious illness, or death of any member of the prisoner's family or of his nearest relatives, or pregnant woman prisoner for delivery (except high security risk prisoner), or for any other sufficient cause." 8. Lastly, Rule 19 has again been substituted by Notification RJM.2003/CR-32/PRS-2 dated 23rd February, 2012, which reads as follows:- "19. When a prisoner may be released on parole. A prisoner will be released on parole for such period not exceeding thirty days at a time as the Competent Authority referred to in rule 18 in its discretion may order, in case of serious illness or death of nearest relative such as father, mother, brother, sister, spouse, children or marriage of brother, sister and children of prisoner or pregnant woman prisoner for delivery (except high security risk prisoner) or in case of natural calamity such as house collapse, floods, fire, earthquake. No such parole or extension of parole shall be granted without obtaining a police report in all cases except in the case of death of his nearest relatives mentioned above; Provided that, a prisoner shall not be released on parole for the period of one year after the expiry of his last parole except in case of death of his nearest relative mentioned above." 9. As per Notification dated 21st November, 1989, proviso to Rule 19 imposed a bar of period of one year for release on parole after the expiry of prisoner's last parole. But strangely enough, that bar of one year was removed by Notification dated 7th February, 2007, with the result that prisoner became eligible to claim parole without any prohibition of one year from the last parole, thereby making the jail sentence meaningless to much extent. But strangely enough, that bar of one year was removed by Notification dated 7th February, 2007, with the result that prisoner became eligible to claim parole without any prohibition of one year from the last parole, thereby making the jail sentence meaningless to much extent. Fortunate enough, the said proviso has been restored by Notification dated 23rd February, 2012. Still the misery of the society does not end here. 10. To repeat, it is clear from the reading of the Rule 19 with Rule 25 that the order to release on parole can be made for a period not exceeding thirty days at a time and after expiry of last parole, for a period of one year, a prisoner shall not be released on parole except in case of death of a nearest relative. Rule 25, however, provides for grant of extension of parole, only if, before the expiry of the period of parole granted, an application for extension one week in advance is made. It is further provided that the total period shall not exceed ninety days. Thus, the total period of parole that can be granted to a prisoner with extension in one year is ninety days, i.e., three months. Then there is a provision for grant of furlough for a period of two weeks every year, which takes the total to 105 days out of 365 days in a year. 11. It is a matter of anxiety that the Rules themselves provide for a prisoner to remain outside the jail for a total period of 105 days out of 365 days in a year. That is the reason why, as it is reported by the Govt. Authorities that thousands of prisoners released on parole and furlough in the Maharshtra State have not come back to the prisons, and have absconded from the course of justice for serving out the sentence and they are not being traced out. On the contrary, they are freely moving in the society. Such convicts in large number are of rape, murder and similar serious offences and due to their free movement in the society, there is direct or indirect fear or creation of terror in the minds of the victims, their relatives, friends and the eye-witnesses etc. On the contrary, they are freely moving in the society. Such convicts in large number are of rape, murder and similar serious offences and due to their free movement in the society, there is direct or indirect fear or creation of terror in the minds of the victims, their relatives, friends and the eye-witnesses etc. A prisoner, who is frequently released on parole and furlough for a total period of 105 days per year moving freely in the society is bound to break the moral of such concerned persons who would then think hundred times before assisting or helping the law enforcement agencies or the Police. We think, this does not enure to the benefit of rule of law, but is destructive of it. These rules, therefore, require a re-look by the Government. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner applied for parole on the ground of illness of his mother on 24th January, 2013. If the petitioner's mother was really seriously ill as contemplated by Rule 19, the parole should have been granted immediately. However, the order granting parole was passed on 7th June, 2013, and the petitioner was actually released from jail on 6th September, 2013, i.e., nine months after the date of application. Admittedly, there was no fresh application in September, 2013. This clearly shows that the reason for release of the petitioner on parole for the January, 2013 serious illness of his mother had become wholly irrelevant. This is a case of sheer casual approach and gross negligence on the part of authorities in dealing with the provision of parole. The extensions were thereafter granted on 17th September, 2013, 24th September, 2013 and 5th October, 2013, for seven, ten and seven days respectively without looking into whether the alleged seriousness of illness of mother of the petitioner, that was reported in January, 2013, continued or not. The age of the mother of the petitioner is only 52 years, and as reported by her doctor, she is suffering from hypertension and debility and nothing more. That cannot be called a serious ailment, since many people complain of hypertension and debility, and for which presence of the prisoner was not at all needed, since the husband of petitioner's mother is a Govt. Servant getting all medical facilities for his family also. 13. To our mind, there is a rampant misuse of the provision of parole. That cannot be called a serious ailment, since many people complain of hypertension and debility, and for which presence of the prisoner was not at all needed, since the husband of petitioner's mother is a Govt. Servant getting all medical facilities for his family also. 13. To our mind, there is a rampant misuse of the provision of parole. In this case also, the provision of parole was clearly mis-utilized by the petitioner. As earlier stated, the petitioner has been lodged in Nagpur Central Jail and must have been meeting his relatives and friends repeatedly in the Nagpur Central Prison. In addition, he was extended the facility of parole also. Thus, in our opinion, there was a gross misuse and misutilization of the provision of parole and furlough by the petitioner and that is being observed in many cases. To provide for release on parole and furlough for a period of 105 days in total out of 365 days must be said to be the Government itself providing for luxury even to the convicts for serious offences. The rule-making authority, in our opinion, ought to think about the victims, witnesses, their relatives and friends who always have an apprehension about the convict moving in their society eye to eye, resulting into fear of and threat from the convicts. In our opinion, the Govt. ought to restore confidence of the common man and the sufferers. With the change of times, so also overall degradation of moral standard in the society and at the helm of the affairs, in our opinion, (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, deserve overall changes for restoration of faith of the people. Except making the said recommendation, we cannot say anything more. 14. In the result, we pass the following order:- ORDER Writ Petition No. 680 of 2013 is dismissed. 15. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, forthwith for information and further action, if any. Petition dismissed.