JUDGMENT : V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 1.6.2016 on the ground of illness of his father. The said application was granted by the Competent Authority by order dated 13.4.2017, however, as the petitioner had been released on furlough on 22.3.2017, on 13.4.2017 when the order granting parole was passed, the petitioner was outside the prison on furlough leave. Hence, when the petitioner was brought back to the prison on 6.5.2017, the order dated 13.4.2017 was communicated to the petitioner. 3. In the order dated 13.4.2017, the petitioner was asked to furnish two sureties; one was the original surety, Mr. Bhupendra Mishra proposed by the petitioner who was the cousin brother of the petitioner. Further the petitioner had to deposit Rs. 15,000/- towards security deposit. In addition, the petitioner was asked to furnish one more surety who was a Central or State Government employee as envisaged under Clause 7(i) of Notification dated 26.8.2016. As the petitioner could not furnish second surety who was a Central or State Government employee, he preferred an application for extension of time and also preferred an application stating that he is willing to furnish surety who falls in Category 7(ii) of the Notification dated 26.8.2016. Clause 7(ii) states that the surety should be elected local representative. The petitioner has stated in his application dated 12.6.2017 that he is willing to furnish surety of local elected representative i.e. Sarpanch of his village. 4. Learned APP states that it would be advisable that the petitioner is directed to submit surety which falls under Category 7(i) because when the petitioner was released on furlough on 22.3.2017, he did not report back on due date to the prison and the petitioner had to be arrested by the police from U.P. and brought back to the prison, hence, she submitted that the second surety should be Central or the State Government employee so that adequate check can be kept on the petitioner by a responsible person. 5. On going through the Clause 7 of the Notification dated 26.8.2016, we are of the opinion that even if the surety is an elected local representative that too would serve the purpose of keeping adequate check on the petitioner if he is released on parole. 5. On going through the Clause 7 of the Notification dated 26.8.2016, we are of the opinion that even if the surety is an elected local representative that too would serve the purpose of keeping adequate check on the petitioner if he is released on parole. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is allowed to furnish surety of Sarpanch who falls under Category 7(ii) provided that Sarpanch is a present Sarpanch and not a past Sarpanch. 6. The petitioner is granted extension of four weeks time to comply with the necessary formalities including furnishing second surety. It is made clear that this period will be computed from the date of communication of this order to the petitioner. 7. This order will be ready by the evening of 9.4.2018. Mr. Prashant M. Nagawade, Gr. 2 Jailor of Nasik Road Central Prison states that he will collect the copy of this order by 10.4.2018 and he will communicate the same to the petitioner. 8. It is made clear that under no circumstances, any further extension of time will be granted. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Order accordingly.