Dnyaneshwar Bhaskar Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 5864 Bom

     jdk                                                 1                                              2.crwp.3462.16.j.doc




                                                                                                                      
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                              
                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3462 OF 2016

    Dnyaneshwar Bhaskar Patil                                                       ]
    Aged 50 years,                                                                  ]




                                                                                             
    Residing at Room No.12,                                                         ]
    Prakash Bldg., Nilegaon,                                                        ]
    Nallasopara (W), Dist. Thane                                                    ]
    At present at Manghar Post Kudevhal                                             ]
    Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad                                                     ]




                                                                         
    (Confined at Yerawada Central                                                   ]
    Prison, Yerawada, Pune.                    ig                                   ]
    Now released on parole leave)                                                   ].. Petitioner

                        Vs.
                                             
    1. The State of Maharashtra                                                     ]
                                                                                    ]
    2. The Superintendent,                                                          ]
         

       Yerawada Central Prison,                                                     ]
       Yerawada, Pune                                                               ]
      



                                                                                    ]
    3. The Divisional Commissioner,                                                 ]
       Pune Division, Council Hall,                                                 ]
       Pune-411001                                                                  ].. Respondents





                                  ....
    Mr. Manas N. Gawankar Advocate for Petitioner
    Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
                                  ....





                                            CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
                                                    MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATED : OCTOBER 05, 2016

1 of 3

jdk 2 2.crwp.3462.16.j.doc

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

1 Heard both sides. Rule. Rule is made returnable

forthwith. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing.

2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole.

The said application came to be granted. Pursuant to the said

order granting parole, the petitioner was released on parole

from 7.8.2016 to 5.9.2016.

ig On 19.8.2016 the petitioner

preferred an application for extension of parole on the ground

of illness of his wife. The said application was granted by order

dated 9.9.2016 and the parole period was extended by a

period of 30 days.

3 Thereafter, the petitioner preferred second

application on 8.9.2016 for extension of parole for a period of

thirty days. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said

application has not yet been decided, hence, the petitioner has

sought directions that the application may be considered as

expeditiously as possible and in the meanwhile, his parole

leave may be extended. We are not inclined to grant any

extension of parole because, it is upto the authorities to decide

2 of 3

jdk 3 2.crwp.3462.16.j.doc

the application of the petitioner for parole. Only order that can

be passed is that the authorities to consider the application for

extension of parole as expeditiously as possible and to

communicate the same to the petitioner.

4 In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere,

hence, Rule is discharged. Writ petition is disposed of with the

above direction.

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

kandarkar

3 of 3