Shrikrushna Onkarrao Raipure (In ... vs The Divisional Commissioner, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4574 Bom

                                                        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

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





                                              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