Bombay High Court
Madhav Balaji Dangare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
5. cri wp 3882-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3882 OF 2016
Madhav Balaji Dangare .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
4.5.2015 on the ground that he has to reconstruct his house
which is dilapidated. The said application came to be
rejected by order dated 22.6.2015. Being aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner preferred appeal. The said appeal was
dismissed by order dated 24.6.2016, hence, this petition.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
5. cri wp 3882-16.doc
2. The office record shows that being aggrieved by the
orders of rejection and dismissal of appeal dated 22.6.2015
and 24.6.2016, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Writ
Petition No. 3178 of 2016. The said Writ Petition was
disposed of by this Court by order dated 29.9.2016. In the
said order, it is reflected as under:-
"2. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be
rejected because the petitioner stated that Shri Rajesh Kushan
Landge (Bhoi), who was residing at Swami Samarth housing
society, Flat No. 7, Niphad, Nasik, was to stand as surety for him.
However, the police made enquiries about Shri Rajesh Kushan
Landge and it was found that no person of such name was
residing in the village and nobody from the village knew him or
where he resided. No information about such person could be
gathered. This was one of the main reasons for rejecting the
application of the petitioner for parole. In this view of the matter,
if the petitioner furnishes a suitable and competent surety, the
application of the petitioner for parole be considered afresh."
It is seen that pursuant to this order, the petitioner has
preferred this petition on 25.10.2016 wherein he has
proposed that his mother will stand as surety for him. The
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
5. cri wp 3882-16.doc
passbook and the affidavit of the mother on stamp paper
that she is willing to stand as surety for the petitioner has
been annexed to this petition. Thus, it is seen that instead of
furnishing these documents before the appropriate authority,
the petitioner has annexed these documents to the present
petition. According to the petitioner, copy of these
documents has also been furnished to the jail authorities.
3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was earlier
released on furlough on 30.3.2015 to 28.4.2015 and the
petitioner has reported back to the prison in time. In
addition, it is an admitted fact that the mother of the
petitioner has stood as surety for the petitioner when the
petitioner was earlier released on furlough on 30.3.2015.
Looking to the fact that the petitioner has reported back to
the prison in time and no adverse incident has been reported
when the petitioner was on furlough, we are of the opinion
that the prayer of the petitioner can be allowed. Thus, the
petitioner to be released on parole on furnishing surety of his
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
5. cri wp 3882-16.doc
mother and on other usual terms and conditions as set out
by the competent authority.
4. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
5. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who
is in Nasik Road Central Prison.
[ A.M. BADAR, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
