Satish Ramchandra Bhojane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 5588 Bom

     jdk                                                   1                                              7.crwp.3207.16.j.doc


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                                      
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3207 OF 2016




                                                                                              
    Satish Rama Bhojane                                                             ]
    C/6397, Age 44 years                                                            ]
    Occ: convict                                                                    ]
    Presently lodged in Kolhapur                                                    ]




                                                                                             
    Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur                                               ]
    416007                                                                          ].. Petitioner

                        Vs.




                                                                         
    1. The State of Maharashtra                                                     ]
        At the instance of /Through            ig                                   ]
        Superintendent, Kolhapur                                                    ]
       Central Prison, Kalamba-7                                                    ]
                                                                                    ]
                                             
    2. Divisional Commissioner,                                                     ]
       Pune Division, Council Hall,                                                 ]
       Pune 411001                                                                  ]
                                                                                    ]
         

    3. Chief Secretary,                                                             ]
       Home Department, Mantralaya,                                                 ]
      



       Mumbai-32                                                                    ]
                                                                                    ]
    4. Sub-Divisional Police Officer,                                               ]
       (S.D.P.O.) Mangalwedha Region                                                ]





       Mangalwedha, Solapur                                                         ]
                                                                                    ]
    5. Police Inspector,                                                            ]
       Mangalwedha Police Station,                                                  ]
       Dist. Solapur                                                                ]..Respondents





                                  ....
    Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate appointed for Petitioner
    Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
                                  ....

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

DATED : SEPTEMBER 26, 2016

1 of 3

jdk 2 7.crwp.3207.16.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 on

4.2.2016. The said application was rejected by the Divisional

Commissioner, Pune ig by order dated 23.6.2016. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3 It is seen that against an order of rejection of an

application for parole by the Divisional Commissioner, remedy

of appeal is provided. The petitioner has not preferred an

appeal and instead, he has directly approached this Court.

When the petitioner has a legal remedy of filing an appeal, we

are of the opinion that he should be relegated to that remedy.

4 Looking to the above facts, we are not inclined to

grant parole and the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of

preferring an appeal. If an appeal is preferred by the

petitioner, the same be decided as expeditiously as possible by

2 of 3

jdk 3 7.crwp.3207.16.j.doc

the authorities.

5 As stated earlier, we are not inclined to grant parole,

hence, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

6 We quantify legal fees to be paid to the learned

appointed advocate at Rs.2500/-.

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

kandarkar
                                                     
                  
               
   





                                                                                                                3   of  3