jdk 1 18.crwp.1786.17.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1786 OF 2017
Pandurang Jyotiba Patil ]
Age 63 years, Occ: Nil ]
Resident of "306" ]
"Vijaymala Sadan" Nagardale ]
Tal. Chandgad, Dist. Kolhapur ]
416508 ].. Petitioner
Vs.
1) The State of Maharashtra ]
]
2) The Superintendent, ]
Kolhapur Central Prison, ]
Kolhapur ].. Respondents
....
Mr. D.G. Khamkar Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
M.S.KARNIK, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 11, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]:
1 Heard both sides. 2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole. The
said application was granted by order dated 11.3.2016. Pursuant to the order granting parole, the petitioner was released on parole on 10.5.2016 for a period of 30 days.
1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:49:23 :::
jdk 2 18.crwp.1786.17.j.doc
Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for extension of parole on the ground that he was still undergoing medical treatment. Pursuant to the said application, extension was granted from 10.6.2016 to 9.7.2016. Thereafter the petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole on 23.6.2016. The said application was made within time, however, the said application came to be rejected on 6.9.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
3 The ground on which the second extension of parole was sought was that the treatment of the petitioner was not yet complete. He was undergoing treatment for his mental condition and the treatment was going on. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the medical certificate dated 21.6.2016. The copy of the said certificate is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.
4 We have perused the jail record of the petitioner and the record shows that on 28.5.2010, 10.5.2010, 19.7.2014 and 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:49:23 ::: jdk 3 18.crwp.1786.17.j.doc 4.7.2016 the petitioner was released on furlough. On all occasions, he has reported back on his own on the due date to the prison. The jail record further shows that the petitioner was released on parole on 17.1.2011, 28.5.2012 and 29.8.2013 on parole. On all the three occasions, he has reported back on the due date on his own to the prison. Thus, it is seen that the present case is the only case where the extension of parole was not granted to the petitioner. In view of the jail record of the petitioner and the fact that it is not controverted that the petitioner is suffering from mental problem and his conduct in the jail which is reported to be good, on humanitarian ground, we extend the period of parole from 10.7.2016 to 8.8.2016. Prison punishment if any, imposed on account of the said overstay, is set aside.
5 Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[ M.S.KARNIK, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] kandarkar 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2017 01:49:23 :::