JUDGMENT P.V. Hardas, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks 30 days extension of the period of parole granted to him by the authorities by the order dated 7/6/2014. 2. The parole which was granted to the petitioner was being for a period of 30 days on account of the ailment of his wife. The petitioner had accordingly released pursuant to the order dated 7/6/20 on 10/6/2014. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner submitted an application on 23/6/2014 praying for extension of the parole by 30 days on the ground of illness of his wife. The respondents by order dated 14/7/2014 allowed the application submitted by the petitioner and granted him the extension as prayed for. Thus by virtue of the extension which is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner would be required to surrender before the authorities on 10/8/2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner submitted an application on 23/7/2014 praying for the second extension of 30 days on the ground that the surgery of his wife was tentatively fixed on 19/8/2014 and the surgery could not be performed earlier on account of the blood sugar and the blood pressure not being normal. 3. Perusal of the medical certificate submitted by Dr. Arun Bhute indicates that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from acute abdominal tuberculosis with stricture with sub-acute intestinal obstruction with hypertension with diabetic mellitus The medical certificate dated 23/7/2014 further opines that the wife of the petitioner requires operation/exploration of abdomen with stricteroplasty etc. and the operation is tentatively fixed on 19/82014 provided her blood sugar and the blood pressure remain under the normal level. 4. The respondents by the order which is impugned in the present petition dated 1/8/2014 rejected the application submitted by the petitioner seeking second extension to his parole granted earlier. The petitioner being thus aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1/8/2014 has filed the present petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered before us the police report which was called for in respect of the first extension which was granted. The police, upon verification from Dr. The petitioner being thus aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1/8/2014 has filed the present petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered before us the police report which was called for in respect of the first extension which was granted. The police, upon verification from Dr. Arun Bhute had opined that the wife of the petitioner was indeed suffering from tuberculosis of the abdomen and as per the medical opinion it was imperative to perform the surgery. It is no doubt true that the date of the surgery has been tentatively fixed on 19/8/2014 with no certainty of the operation being performed on that day as the performing of the surgery on 19/8/2014 would depend upon the blood sugar and blood pressure of the wife of the petitioner remaining normal on that day. It is also urged before us that the petitioner is the only male member in the family with no one else to look after the ailing wife of the petitioner. It is also urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on all earlier occasions whenever the petitioner was released either on parole or on furlough, the petitioner had surrendered within time and had not absconded. The learned APP has opposed the petitioner on the ground that no substantial grounds for seeking the second extension have been made out as the date of the surgery is only tentative and it is doubtful if the surgery would at all be performed on that day. 6. It is true that in the medical certificate, the date of surgery i.e. 19/8/2014 has been given as a tentative date subject to the blood pressure and the blood sugar of the wife of the petitioner attaining normalcy. As per the Rules, if no extension is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner would not be able to avail parole for the next one year. The ailment of the wife of the petitioner i.e. tuberculosis plus the abdominal obstruction and the holding of the surgery has been established as true. The police on their verification have found that the ailment as diagnosed by the Medical Officer is correct. As pointed out by us above, if the petitioner is not granted any extension, the petitioner would not be able to avail the parole for the next one year. The police on their verification have found that the ailment as diagnosed by the Medical Officer is correct. As pointed out by us above, if the petitioner is not granted any extension, the petitioner would not be able to avail the parole for the next one year. In the aforesaid background of the facts and in the peculiar facts of the presence case, according to us, an extension of 15 days effective from 10/8/2014 needs to be granted to the petitioner in order to attend to his ailing wife and particularly to remain present at the time of the surgery. 7. Resultantly, therefore, we allow the petition and grant extension for a period of 15 (fifteen) days effective from 10/8/2014. The petitioner shall surrender to his parole on 26/8/2014 and shall not be entitled to claim any further extension. The said extension has been granted to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the present case. Rule is absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs.