Santosh Krushna Narote (In Jail) vs The Superintendent Central ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1584 Bom

                                                       1                           10042017  Judg.wp 1006.16.odt 

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                      Criminal Writ Petition No.1006 of 2016

            Santosh Krushna Narote,
            Aged  adult, R/o.-At Devpur,
            Post-Dudha, Tah. Buldhana, Distt. Buldhana
            (Presently at Central Prison, Amravati C-3657)          ....  Petitioner.

                                                          Versus

            1]       The Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati.

            2]       The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati.          ....  Respondents.



            Shri  D.S. Lambat, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner.
            Shri  A.S. Fulzele, Addl. PP for respondents.


                                                   Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari  &
                                                                V.M. Deshpande, JJ.

th Dated : 10 April, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

Heard learned Advocate Shri Lambat (appointed) for the

petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Perused the records.

            2]        The petitioner was released on parole on 17-03-2016 for period 





                                                        2                           10042017  Judg.wp 1006.16.odt 

of 30 days'. He sought extension on 22-03-2016 and that application

was allowed on 06-05-2016. However, extension granted was till

15-05-2016. The petitioner then moved another application on

29-05-2016 and that application is still not decided. He has reported

back on 16-06-2016 i.e after enjoying the maximum period for which

parole can be availed of as per rules.

3] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor by relying upon

paragraph 5 of the reply-affidavit urged that for valid reasons the

application could not be decided.

4] We find that the reason being pressed into service for keeping

application pending is irrelevant. The amendment to the Prison

(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, then under consideration

cannot be construed as amounting to suspension of existing provision.

5] In this situation, taking overall view of the matter, as the

petitioner has reported back on 16-06-2016, without laying down any

precedent, we extend his parole till that date. With the result, show

cause notice dated 18-06-2016 served upon him is quashed and

set aside.

6] The petition is, thus, partly allowed and disposed of.

                                                        3                           10042017  Judg.wp 1006.16.odt 

           7]                   The charges of learned Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner 

           are quantified at Rs. 1500/-.



                                            JUDGE                                        JUDGE   
                                  




            Deshmukh