Sanjay Khanderao Wadane vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 9586 Bom

                                                                                   3. cri wp 4770-17.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4770 OF 2017


            Sanjay Khanderao Wadane                                       .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mr. Arfan Sait         APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
                                              M.S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 13, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

25.1.2016. The said application was granted by order dated

26.4.2016. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was released on

parole for a period of 30 days i.e from 31.5.2016 to

29.6.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred his first

application for extension of parole for a period of 30 days.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 2





                                                              3. cri wp 4770-17.doc

The said application was granted and parole was extended

till 29.7.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred second

application for extension of parole on 22.7.2016. The said

application was rejected by order dated 2.8.2016. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present

petition.

3. Against the order of rejection of an application for

extension of parole, remedy of appeal has been provided. It

is seen that the petitioner has not exhausted that remedy

and and has directly preferred this writ petition, hence, we

are not inclined to interfere. The petitioner is relegated to

the remedy of preferring an appeal against the order of

rejection dated 2.8.2016, hence, Rule is discharged.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                    [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          2 of 2