Shivanand @ Shiva Shivsharan ... vs The Superintendent Yerawada ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6489 Bom

                                                                                   2. cri wp 2384-09.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                                 
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2384 OF 2009




                                                                         
            Shivanand @ Shiva Shivsharan Algundagi .. Petitioner

                                 Versus




                                                                        
            The Superintendent, Yerawada Central
            Prison, Pune & Others                .. Respondents

                                                  ...................




                                                            
            Appearances
            Mr. Ranjeet H. Patil i/by         
            Mr. Pushkarni Kulkarni Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedia            APP for the State
                                        ...................
                                             
                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2016.

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

1. Heard both sides.

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

3. The prayer of the petitioner is for extension of parole

for a period of 30 days. Learned APP has produced a

communication received from the Superintendent of

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 2

2. cri wp 2384-09.doc

Yerawada Central Prison where the petitioner was earlier

lodged. This communication shows that the Supreme Court

has released the petitioner on bail. The said communication

is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.

4. From the petition, it is clear that after the petitioner

was granted parole, he was granted two extensions of parole

for a period of 30 days each. Thus, the petitioner was out on

parole for a period of 90 days which is the maximum period

of parole which can be granted to the prisoner. Any

extension more than 90 days cannot be granted to the

prisoner.

5. In view of above, no case is made out for interference,

hence, Rule is discharged.

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




    jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 2