Manohar S/O Tulsiram Ladekar (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4419 Bom

                                                        1                         crwp483.16.odt

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                                        
                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.483/2016




                                                                
            Manohar s/o Tulsiram Ladekar,
            aged major, (C/4397), Central Prison,
            Nagpur.                               .....PETITIONER




                                                               
                                   ...V E R S U S...

     1.     State of Maharashtra through
            The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur.




                                                
     2.     The Superintendent, Central Prison,
                             
            Nagpur.                                              ...RESPONDENTS

     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            
     Ms. R. V. Ramteke, Advocate for petitioner.
     Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     CORAM:-  B. R. GAVAI &    V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.

DATED :- AUGUST 3, 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 approached this Court, being aggrieved by

rejection of his application for extension of parole. The petitioner

was released on parole for a period of 15 days vide order dated

17.12.2015 for attending the last rites of his mother. However, the

petitioner made an application for extension of the said parole by 30

days. The same was rejected on 25.01.2016. Since, the same was

2 crwp483.16.odt

rejected, the petitioner immediately surrendered. However, there

was a delay of five days in surrendering to the jail.

3. The application was rejected on the ground that there is

no provision to grant post facto approval to the extension of parole.

We find that the petitioner had bonafidely made an

application and after rejection of the same, immediately surrendered.

In any case, the period is less than the maximum period of 90 days.

4. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The

impugned order is quashed and set aside. The period of five days i.e.

the period of late surrender, shall be considered as a period

admissible under parole.

Professional fees of Ms R. V. Ramteke, Advocate

appointed on behalf of the petitioner is quantified at Rs.1,500/-.

Rule made absolute in the above terms.

                                   (V. M. Deshpande)                    (B. R. Gavai)



     kahale





                                              3                       crwp483.16.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:04.08.2016