Bombay High Court
Ravichand Madanchand Thakur @ ... vs The Principal Secretary And Anr on 14 December, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 1.crwp.4257.16.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4257 OF 2016
Ravichand Madanchand Thakur @ ]
Raja Thakur, Aged about 32 years, ]
Occ: Builder, Residing at Thane ]
At present undergoing sentence ]
imposed upon him at Nashik Road ]
Central Prison as Convict No.C/10486)].. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary, ]
Home Department, ]
The State of Maharashtra ]
]
2. The Divisional Commissioner, ]
Nashik Division, Nashik ].. Respondents
....
Mrs. Pooja Ravichand Thakur Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
A.M.BADAR, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 14, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Heard both sides. Rule. Rule is made returnable
forthwith. By consent, matter is heard finally.
1 of 3
jdk 2 1.crwp.4257.16.j.doc
2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
28.4.2016 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said
application was not decided, hence, the petitioner preferred
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3829 of 2016 wherein he had raised
the grievance that his application though he had preferred for
parole on 28.4.2016, till the date of hearing of the petition i.e.
18.11.2016, the application for parole was not yet decided.
Looking to the grievance made by the petitioner, this Court
disposed of Writ Petition No. 3829 of 2016 by order dated
18.11.2016 and observed that the concerned authorities to
decide the application of the petitioner within a period of two
weeks from the date of communication of the order.
3 In the present petition, the grievance is raised that
though the petitioner had applied for regular parole, he was
granted emergency parole only for a period of seven days. We
have gone through the application made by the petitioner
seeking parole which has been produced by the jail authorities.
We find that there is no mention in the said application about
seeking emergency parole. The medical certificate relied upon
2 of 3
jdk 3 1.crwp.4257.16.j.doc
by the petitioner as well as the jail authorities for granting
parole, also does not mention that the surgery was fixed on
any particular date. In this view of the matter, we fail to
understand on what basis emergency parole was granted or
why parole was granted only for a period of seven days when
normally parole is granted for a period of 30 days. Hence, we
set aside the order dated 2.12.2016 whereby emergency
parole of seven days was granted to the petitioner. Instead,
we direct the petitioner to be released on parole for a period of
thirty days on complying with the same terms and conditions
as stated in the order dated 2.12.2016 except that instead of
attending the police station twice in a day, he shall report to
the police station only once in a day.
4 Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition is
disposed of accordingly.
[ A.M.BADAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
3 of 3
