Bombay High Court
Yasin Khalil Inamdar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 December, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
2b. cri wp 4121-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4121 OF 2016
Yasin Khalil Inamdar .. 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. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the
ground of illness of his daughter. The said application was
granted by order dated 10.3.2016. The petitioner was
released on parole on 11.4.2016 for a period of 30 days. The
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
2b. cri wp 4121-16.doc
petitioner then preferred an application dated 25.4.2016 for
extension of parole. The said extension was granted and the
parole period was extended to 10.6.2016. Thereafter, the
petitioner preferred second application dated 14.6.2016 for
extension of parole from 11.6.2016 for a period of 30 days.
The said application was rejected on 3.9.2016. Meanwhile,
the petitioner had surrendered to the prison on his own on
12.7.2016. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the second
application for extension of parole, the petitioner has
preferred this petition.
4. The second application of the petitioner for extension of
parole is dated 14.6.2016. The said application was made
within time. To this application, the petitioner has annexed
medical certificate dated 13.6.2016 which shows that his
daughter who is 10 years of age is suffering from
appendicitis and she is advised operation. The genuineness
of this certificate is not doubted. However, the application of
the petitioner for extension of parole was rejected on the
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
2b. cri wp 4121-16.doc
ground that his two brothers who are co-accused are
absconding and there are other relatives to take care of his
daughter. The third ground is that when the petitioner was
released on furlough in the year 2010, a Chapter Case was
registered against him.
5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was released
on three occasions on furlough and on three occasion on
parole and on all these occasions, he reported back to the
prison in time. The petitioner was released on furlough on
3.2.2010, 9.4.2012 and 12.10.2013. On all these occasions,
he reported back to the prison in time. The petitioner was
released on parole on 3.2.2011, 1.11.2012 and 11.2.2014
and on all the occasions, he reported back to prison in time.
No doubt, it is stated that in the year 2010, a Chapter Case
was registered against him, however, it is seen that
thereafter the petitioner has been released on five occasions
on parole and furlough. As far as these five occasions are
concerned, he has not come to adverse notice of the police.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
2b. cri wp 4121-16.doc
Looking to this fact and the fact that the daughter of the
petitioner is 10 years old, on humanitarian ground, we are of
the opinion that the parole period ought to be extended.
Accordingly, parole period is extended by a period of 30 days
from 11.6.2016. Any prison punishment on account of
overstay is set aside.
6.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
7. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who
is in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba.
[ A.M. BADAR, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
