Ravi Taru Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 6536 Bom

 jdk                                                1                                              15.crwp.2989.17.j.doc



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2989 OF 2017

Ravi Taru Rathod                                                                ]
Presently lodged at Kolhapur                                                    ]
Central Prison, Kalamba, as                                                     ]
Prisoner No. 6197                                                               ].. Petitioner

                    Vs.

The State of Maharashtra                                                        ]
and its functionaries like                                                      ]
(1) Divisional Commissioner, Pune                                               ]
    Division, Pune -1                                                           ]
(2) Section Officer of Home Deptt.                                              ]
    Maharashtra State, Priosn-3                                                 ].. Respondents


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


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

                     DATED : AUGUST                         24, 2017


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

1                   Heard both sides.



2                   The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

the ground of illness of his wife.                                             The said application was

rejected by order dated 16.1.2017. Being aggrieved thereby,

1 of 2

jdk 2 15.crwp.2989.17.j.doc

the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal was

dismissed by order dated 29.4.2017, hence, this petition.

3 The application for parole came to be rejected in view

of Rule 4(13) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole)

Rules, 1959. The said Rule states that prisoners convicted for

the offence such as dacoity, shall not be granted furlough. In

Notification dated 26.8.2016 it is stated that the same Rules

would apply to parole as are applicable to the cases of furlough.

The petitioner has been convicted for the offence of dacoity i.e.

under Section 396 of IPC, hence, we cannot find fault with the

authorities for rejecting the application for parole, hence, Rule

is discharged. Petition is dismissed.

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

kandarkar

2 of 2