Uttareshwar Ramchandra Devkar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 6733 Bom

                                                                                 3b. cri wp 3230-16.doc


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




                                                                                                
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3230 OF 2016




                                                                        
            Uttareshwar Ramchandra Devkar                                .. 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 &
                                              MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2016.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

18.10.2012 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said

application came to be granted on 16.1.2013 and the

petitioner was released on parole on 2.2.2013 for a period of

30 days. The petitioner is now seeking extension of parole

by a period of 60 days.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                   1 of 2



                                                                3b. cri wp 3230-16.doc

3. Learned APP states that the petitioner has to prefer an

application to the concerned authority for extension of parole

but that has not been done by the applicant and he has

directly approached this Court. Learned APP further states

that though the petitioner has stated in his petition that he

preferred an application for extension of parole, no such

application has been received by the concerned authority till

date.

The report to that effect is taken on record and

marked "X" for identification. Moreover, we have noticed

that in the petition, no reason is given for extension of

parole. It is simply stated that treatment of his mother was

going on, however, what was the nature of illness, how

serious was the illness, whether it was such that extension of

parole could have been granted is not stated in the petition.

In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant the

prayer of the petitioner. Rule is discharged.

4. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who

is in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.

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




    jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 2