Sandip @ Babu Bhausaheb Kate vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 5593 Bom

     jdk                                                   1                                              5.crwp.3206.16.j.doc


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                                      
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3206 OF 2016




                                                                                              
    Sandip alias Babu Bhausaheb Kate                                                ]
    C/7232,                                                                         ]
    Presently lodged in Nashik Road                                                 ]
    Central Prison, Nashik                                                          ].. Petitioner




                                                                                             
                        Vs.

    The State of Maharashtra                                                        ]..Respondent




                                                                         
                                  ....        
    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

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

dated 16.12.2015 on the ground of illness of his mother. The

said application was rejected by order dated 22.3.2016 by the

Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. Being aggrieved thereby,

1 of 2

jdk 2 5.crwp.3206.16.j.doc

the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be

dismissed by order dated 16.7.2016, hence, this petition.

3 The application of the petitioner for parole was

rejected mainly on the ground that on 17.8.2010 when the

petitioner was released on furlough for a period of 14 days, he

did not report back in time. Ultimately, he had to be traced

and he was arrested by the police and brought back to prison.

He was brought back to the prison on 8.11.2012. Thus, there

was overstay on the part of the petitioner of 786 days. In this

view of the matter, the authorities apprehended that if the

petitioner is released on parole, he will not report back to the

prison in time and he will abscond. Looking at the past conduct

of the petitioner, it cannot be said that this apprehension is

without any basis. Looking to the above facts, we are not

inclined to grant parole, hence, petition is dismissed. Rule is

discharged.

4 We quantify legal fees to be paid to the learned

appointed advocate at Rs.2500/-.

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

kandarkar

2 of 2