Balasaheb Raghunath Gujale vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 5089 Bom

     jdk                                                   1                                              2.crwp.2582.16.j.doc


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                                      
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2582 OF 2016




                                                                                              
    Balasaheb Raghunath Gujle                                                       ]
    C/4659, Age 39 years,                                                           ]
    Occ: Convict                                                                    ]
    Presently lodged at Kolhapur                                                    ]




                                                                                             
    Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur                                               ].. Petitioner

                        Vs.

    1. The State of Maharashtra                                                     ]




                                                                         
                                                                                    ]
    2. Divisional Commissioner,                ig                                   ]
       Pune Division, Council Hall,                                                 ]
       Pune-1                                                                       ]
                                                                                    ]
                                             
    3. Additional Superintendent of                                                 ]
       Police Sangli at Sangli                                                      ]
                                                                                    ]
    4. Sub-Divisonal Officer,                                                       ]
          

       Miraj Division, Dist. Sangli                                                 ]
                                                                                    ]
       



    5. Police Inspector,                                                            ]
       Miraj Police Station, Miraj, Sangli                                          ].. Respondents

                                  ....





    Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate appointed for Petitioner
    Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
                                  ....

                                            CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
                                                    MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 30, 2016

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

1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent,

matter is taken up for final hearing. Heard both sides.

                                                                                                        1   of  2





                       jdk                                                   2                                              2.crwp.2582.16.j.doc

                     2                   The petitioner preferred an application for parole on




                                                                                                                                       

4.2.2016. The said application came to be rejected by order

dated 21.4.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has

preferred this petition.

3 The application of the petitioner for parole came to be

rejected by order dated 21.4.2016 passed by the Divisional

Commissioner, Pune. Against the order of rejection of

application for parole, remedy of appeal has been provided.

The petitioner has not exhausted that remedy. The Supreme

Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal and Ors. Vs.

Superintendent of Taxes, Dubri reported in AIR 1964 SC 1419

has observed that when there is an alternate efficacious

remedy, a writ petition should not be entertained. In view of

the fact that there is an alternate efficacious remedy of

preferring an appeal against the order of rejection of parole

the petitioner is relegated to that remedy. In case the

petitioner prefers an appeal, the said appeal to be decided on

merits as expeditiously as possible. In view of the above, we

are not inclined to grant parole, hence, Rule is discharged.

Petition stands dismissed.

Kandarkar [ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]

2 of 2