Akram Khalil Ahmad Inamdar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 5937 Bom
Judgement Date : 14 August, 2017

Bombay High Court
Akram Khalil Ahmad Inamdar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 14 August, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
 jdk                                                   1                                              14.crwp.2527.17.j.doc



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2527 OF 2017

Akram Khalil Ahmad Inamdar                                                      .. Petitioner

                    Vs.

The State of Maharashtra                                                        .. Respondent


                               ....
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
                               ....


                            CORAM :                         SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                                            DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
                           DATED :                          AUGUST 14, 2017


ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]:

1                   Heard both sides.



2                   The petitioner preferred an application for parole

which was allowed and the petitioner was granted parole from 26.2.2013 to 27.3.2013. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for extension of parole for a further period of 30 days which was rejected, hence, this petition.



3                   The application of the petitioner for extension of

                                                                                                    1   of  2




         ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:28:46 :::
              jdk                                                   2                                              14.crwp.2527.17.j.doc

parole came to be rejected on the ground that when he was released on 26.2.2013 for a period of 30 days, he had threatened the mother of the deceased i.e. the deceased in the case in which he has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC. In view of this fact, the authorities apprehended that if the parole period is extended, the petitioner will indulge in similar activities. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner when he was released on parole, we cannot find fault with the authority for rejecting the application for extension of parole, hence, we are not inclined to interfere. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] kandarkar 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:28:46 :::