1 10042017 Judg.wp 1006.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No.1006 of 2016
Santosh Krushna Narote,
Aged adult, R/o.-At Devpur,
Post-Dudha, Tah. Buldhana, Distt. Buldhana
(Presently at Central Prison, Amravati C-3657) .... Petitioner.
Versus
1] The Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati.
2] The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. .... Respondents.
Shri D.S. Lambat, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. PP for respondents.
Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari &
V.M. Deshpande, JJ.
th Dated : 10 April, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Heard learned Advocate Shri Lambat (appointed) for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the records.
2] The petitioner was released on parole on 17-03-2016 for period
::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:02:59 :::
2 10042017 Judg.wp 1006.16.odt
of 30 days'. He sought extension on 22-03-2016 and that application was allowed on 06-05-2016. However, extension granted was till 15-05-2016. The petitioner then moved another application on 29-05-2016 and that application is still not decided. He has reported back on 16-06-2016 i.e after enjoying the maximum period for which parole can be availed of as per rules.
3] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor by relying upon paragraph 5 of the reply-affidavit urged that for valid reasons the application could not be decided.
4] We find that the reason being pressed into service for keeping application pending is irrelevant. The amendment to the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, then under consideration cannot be construed as amounting to suspension of existing provision. 5] In this situation, taking overall view of the matter, as the petitioner has reported back on 16-06-2016, without laying down any precedent, we extend his parole till that date. With the result, show cause notice dated 18-06-2016 served upon him is quashed and set aside.
6] The petition is, thus, partly allowed and disposed of. ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:02:59 :::
3 10042017 Judg.wp 1006.16.odt
7] The charges of learned Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner
are quantified at Rs. 1500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:02:59 :::