Bombay High Court
Shivaji Ramchandra Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 December, 2017
7. WP 3958.17.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3958 OF 2017
Mr.Shivaji Ramchandra Pawar .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr. Prosper D'Souza, for the Petitioner.
Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP for State.
CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.
AND M.S.KARNIK, J.
22nd DECEMBER, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.
V :
.K.TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.)
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole
which is granted by the Authority on 03/09/2015. Pursuant to
the said order, the petitioner was released on parole on
30/09/2015 for a period of 30 days i.e. till 29/10/2015.
Thereafter the petitioner preferred first application for extension
of parole on 19/10/2015. He sought extension of parole for 30
days i.e. upto 29/11/2015. Thereafter the petitioner preferred
7. WP 3958.17.doc
2nd application for extension of parole on 20/11/2015. He
sought extension of parole from 29/11/2015 to 28/12/2015.
The application for extension was rejected by order dated
06/09/2016. Hence, this Petition.
3. The application of the petitioner for parole came to
be rejected on the ground that the Doctor had advised that
surgery of wife of the petitioner would be conducted after 20
days. However, the said certificate is without any signature or
any stamp. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner for extension of
parole was rejected. On perusal of the said medical certificate
which is dated 15/10/2015, we noticed that there is signature
thereon and it is on the letterhead. The certificate clearly shows
that wife of the petitioner was suffering from severe Anemia,
hence, the operation was postponed for a period of 20 days. We
would also like to advert to the conduct of the petitioner. In the
year 2011, 2012, 2014, the petitioner was released on furlough
and on all occasions, he reported back to the prison on due date
on his own. The petitioner was released on parole in the year
7. WP 3958.17.doc
2009 and 2013 and on both occasions, he reported back to the
prison on the due date on his own. Thereafter the petitioner
was released on parole on 03/09/2015 i.e. the parole we are
concerned with in the present case. It is pertinent to note that
when he was released on parole as soon as the extended period
sought by the petitioner was over, he surrendered back on his
own to the prison on 28/12/2015. Thereafter the petitioner was
released on parole on 28/09/2016 and he has reported back to
the prison on due date on his own. This year the petitioner was
released on furlough on 26/01/2017 and he has reported back
on due date to the prison on his own. The conduct of the
petitioner in the prison is stated to be good. Looking to these
facts and medical certificate filed by the petitioner, we are
inclined to grant 1st extension of parole i.e. from 30/10/2015 to
29/11/2015. Any prison punishment imposed on account of
over stay is set aside.
4. As far as 2nd extension of parole i.e. from
30/11/2015 to 28/12/2015 is concerned, we are, prima facie,
7. WP 3958.17.doc
of the opinion that if the petitioner did not receive any reply
regarding his 1st application for extension of parole by
29/11/2015, he should have surrendered back to the prison.
Thus, as far as period of 2nd extension from 30/11/2015 to
28/12/2015 is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere at this
stage. It will be open to the Authorities to issue show cause
notice regarding imposing any punishment on the petitioner and
if punishment is imposed it would be open to him to challenge
the same before this Court.
5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
6. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner
who is in Kolhapur, Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
