1 crwp465.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.465/2016
Shrikrushna Onkarrao Raipure,
Convict No. C-3599, Central Prison,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati. ...RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Radha Mishra, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. N. B. Jawade, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.
DATED :- AUGUST 9, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. R. Gavai, J.)
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2013 vide which the period spent by the petitioner outside the prison after expiry of his parole period came to be treated as absence and penalty in the ratio of 1:3 days was imposed upon him.
3. The petitioner applied for parole on the ground that his ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2016 00:34:19 ::: 2 crwp465.16.odt mother was seriously ill and the said application was allowed on 04.04.2011 and the petitioner was released no parole on 12.04.2011 for 30 days. The petitioner, thereafter applied for extension for a further period of 30 days. The same was also granted. The petitioner again applied for extension of parole for further period of 30 days.
Vide order dated 14.07.2011 the said application was rejected.
However, the prior to the rejection of the application, the petitioner had surrendered on 02.07.2011 i.e. belatedly by 20 days.
4. It would thus be seen that the petitioner had surrendered prior to his application being rejected. The petitioner acted under bona fide belief that his application could be considered. Be that as it may, petitioner had not exceeded the maximum period of 90 days.
5. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The excess period of 20 days be treated as a period of parole.
Professional charges of Ms Radha Mishra, Advocate appointed by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur are quantified at Rs.1500/-.
(V. M. Deshpande) (B. R. Gavai)
kahale
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2016 00:34:19 :::
3 crwp465.16.odt
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Y. A. Kahale. Uploaded On:10.08.2016 ::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2016 00:34:19 :::