Vijay Suresh Bawne (In Jail) vs Divisional Commissioner Nagpur ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5803 Bom

                                       1                                      jg.cri.wp 677.17.odt

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

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 677 of 2017

Vijay Suresh Bawne 
Convict No. 9014, 
Presently at Central Prison, Nagpur.                                         .... Petitioner

      //  Versus //

(1) Divisional Commissioner,
      Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 

(2) Jail Superintendent,
      Nagpur Central Jail, 
      Nagpur.                                                            .... Respondents

Shri  Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the petitioner 
Ms. T. H. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 
                                                         
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                 M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 09-08-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ

petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the

learned counsel for the parties.

By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the

order of the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur dated 22-6-2017 rejecting

the application of the petitioner for releasing him on parole for a period

.....2/-

                                          2                                      jg.cri.wp 677.17.odt

of 30 days. 

Shri Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that only

because the petitioner had reported late by 5 days on earlier occasion

when he was released on parole, the Divisional Commissioner has

wrongfully rejected the application made by the petitioner for grant of

parole leave. It is submitted that the release of the petitioner on parole

would be necessary as the wife of the petitioner is required to undergo a

by-pass surgery.

Ms. Khan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing

for the respondents has supported the order of the Divisional

Commissioner. It is submitted that though on the last occasion, the

petitioner surrendered 5 days after the expiry of the parole leave period,

on the first occasion, when he was granted parole leave, he did not

surrender and he was required to be brought to the prison by the police

authorities.

In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to

quash and set aside the order of the respondent no. 1 and direct the

respondent no. 2 to release the petitioner on parole leave for 30 days as

his wife would be undergoing the by-pass surgery. Though on the first

.....3/-

3 jg.cri.wp 677.17.odt

occasion, the petitioner did not surrender and was required to be brought

to the prison by the police authorities and on the second occasion, he

had surrendered to the prison a little belatedly, since the petitioner

undertakes to surrender immediately on the expiry of parole leave, it

would be necessary to allow the writ petition of the petitioner in the

circumstances of the case.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal writ petition is

allowed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole

for 28 days, within 7 days from the date of compliance of the conditions

that may be imposed by the respondent no. 1 in the order granting

parole.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Order

accordingly.

Steno copy is granted on request.

                JUDGE                                                JUDGE




wasnik




                                                                                           ...../-