Suresh Atmaram Indore (In Jail) vs The Divisional Commissioner, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4693 Bom

    Judgment                                                                          wp464.16

                                               1




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




                                                        
                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION  No. 464   OF   2016.




                                                       
          Suresh Atmaram Indore,




                                            
          Convict No.C-4483,
          Central Prison, Amravati,
          District Amravati,.      
                               ig                                    ....PETITIONER.
                             
                                           VERSUS

      1. The Divisional Commissioner,
         Amravati Division, Amravati.
      


      2. The Superintendent,
   



         Central Prison, Amravati,
         District Amravati.                                          ....RESPONDENTS
                                                                                    . 





                              ----------------------------------- 
                 Mrs. P.P. Chobe, Advocate (Appointed) for Petitioner.
                       Mr. N.B. Jawade, A.P.P. for Respondents.
                              ------------------------------------





                                       CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                     A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 16, 2016.

Judgment wp464.16

ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)

Heard Mrs. P.P. Chobe, learned Counsel (appointed) for the

petitioner and Shri N.B. Jawade, learned A.P.P. for respondents. Considering

the controversy involved and with consent of the parties, Writ Petition is

taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule is made

returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner was released on parole on 30.10.2014 and he

surrendered on 23.02.2015. Before that he had moved an application

seeking extension of parole leave on the ground that his wife was still unwell

and needed attention.

3. Reply filed by respondents reveal that this application for

extension dated 20.11.2014 was being processed, but, then report upon it

was sent by the Superintendent of Police, Washim on 25.01.2016 i.e. almost

after more than 1 year and 2 months. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had

already surrendered back.

4. In this situation, the respondents have to consider the correctness

or otherwise of the reasons offered by him for seeking extension of parole

Judgment wp464.16

leave. Perusal of Rule 13 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole)

Rules, 1959 shows that there can be two extension for 30 days each.

5. Hence, without observing anything on the merits of the matter, we

direct the authorities to consider the application for extension submitted by

the petitioner and take a suitable decision thereon within a period of three

months.

6. In view of above, Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

7. Fees for the appointed counsel is quantified at Rs.1500/-.

                                 JUDGE                                 JUDGE


    Rgd.






     Judgment                                                                            wp464.16






                                                                                  
                                          CERTIFICATE




                                                          

I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed judgment/order.

Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploaded on : 18.08.2016