Bombay High Court
Laxman @ Bhimagonda Apayya Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 December, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
30. Cri. 4310-17.doc
DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4310 OF 2017
Laxman @ Bhimagonda Apayya Patil .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & anr. .. Respondents
...........
Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the petitioner.
Mr. Arfan Sait, A.P.P. - State.
...........
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.
AND M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : 6th DECEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.):-
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was
granted pursuant to which he was released on parole on
13/7/2016 for a period of 30 days i.e. 14/7/2016 to 12/8/2016.
30. Cri. 4310-17.doc
On 25/7/2016 the petitioner preferred his first application for
extension of parole leave for further period of 30 days that is till
11/9/2016. The said application came to be granted. Thereafter,
the petitioner preferred second application for extension of
parole leave on 25/8/2016 for a period of 30 days that is till
12/10/2016. The said application was not decided till
12/10/2016, hence, as soon as the period of 30 days was over,
the petitioner surrendered to the prison on 12/10/2016. Much
thereafter, the application for extension of parole came to be
rejected on 10/2/2017. The appeal against the said order was
rejected on 25/7/2017, hence, this petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the second application for extension of parole came to be
rejected on the ground that Notification dated 26/8/2016 states
that parole can be granted only for 45 days and can be extended
by a further period of 15 days only. In view of this Notification,
the second application of the petitioner for parole came to be
rejected. She pointed out that the application of the petitioner
30. Cri. 4310-17.doc
for parole was much prior to the Notification which is seen from
the fact that the application for parole was granted pursuant to
which he was released on 13/7/2016. Thus, she submitted that
this Notification cannot be made retrospectively applicable to
the petitioner. We find this contention to be correct. The said
Notification cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. On the
date of the application for parole, parole could be granted for 30
days with maximum of two extensions of 30 + 30 days. The
medical certificate shows that the wife of the petitioner is
suffering from many medical problems. In addition, the jail
record of the petitioner shows that from the year 2006, he has
been released on furlough on ten occasions and on all the
occasions he has reported back to the prison on due date on his
own. In addition, the petitioner was released on parole on five
occasions and except on one occasion when he reported one day
late on the remaining four occasions he reported back on due
date on his own. In addition, it is stated that the conduct of the
prisoner is good. It is also an admitted fact that as soon as the
extended period of 30 days got over, the petitioner surrendered
30. Cri. 4310-17.doc
back to the prison on 12/10/2016 on his own. Looking to all
these facts, we are inclined to grant extension of parole to the
petitioner for a further period of 30 days i.e. 13/9/2016 to
11/10/2016.
4. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
