Akram Khalil Ahmad Inamdar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 5937 Bom

 jdk                                                   1                                              14.crwp.2527.17.j.doc



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2527 OF 2017

Akram Khalil Ahmad Inamdar                                                      .. Petitioner

                    Vs.

The State of Maharashtra                                                        .. Respondent


                               ....
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
                               ....


                            CORAM :                         SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                                            DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

                           DATED :                          AUGUST 14, 2017


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

1                   Heard both sides.



2                   The petitioner preferred an application for parole

which was allowed and the petitioner was granted parole from

26.2.2013 to 27.3.2013. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an

application for extension of parole for a further period of 30

days which was rejected, hence, this petition.

3                   The application of the petitioner for extension of

                                                                                                    1   of  2





              jdk                                                   2                                              14.crwp.2527.17.j.doc

parole came to be rejected on the ground that when he was

released on 26.2.2013 for a period of 30 days, he had

threatened the mother of the deceased i.e. the deceased in the

case in which he has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC.

In view of this fact, the authorities apprehended that if the

parole period is extended, the petitioner will indulge in similar

activities. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner when he was

released on parole, we cannot find fault with the authority for

rejecting the application for extension of parole, hence, we are

not inclined to interfere. Petition is dismissed. Rule is

discharged.

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

kandarkar

2 of 2