Bombay High Court
Kishor S/O. Kawaduji Wanjari (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 11 July, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 CRIWP319.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 319 OF 2017
PETITIONER : Kishor S/o Kawaduji Wanjari,
C-20 detained in Central Prison,
Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1] State of Maharashtra,
through the Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2] Superintendent of Central Prison,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. S. V. Salwankar, Advocate appointed for the petitioner.
Mr. M. K. Pathan, A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE and
MURLIDHAR G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : JULY 11, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2] By this petition, the petitioner seeks his release on parole
leave for a period of 30 days.
2 CRIWP319.17.odt
3] The petitioner is undergoing the sentence of life
imprisonment in Central Prison, Amravati for the offence punishable
under Sections 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4] It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for parole
leave of 30 days before the respondent no.1, which is still pending.
The petitioner moved application for release on parole on 29.1.2016
and again on 18.3.2016. It is submitted that son of the petitioner
namely Nikhil Kishor Wanjari is suffering from Esophasitic with
Ulceration (Post and ingestion), as he consumed acid. He was
admitted in Shri Vasantrao Naik Government Medical College at
Yavatmal. He was then admitted in Super Speciality Hospital,
Nagpur and thereafter to K.E.M. Hospital, Mumbai for medical
treatment. The petitioner wanted to remain with his son and
therefore, he had applied for parole leave, but the application was
wrongly rejected by the respondent without application of the mind.
The petitioner, therefore, prayed for releasing him on parole leave
for a period of 30 days.
5] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State,
by inviting our attention to the reply on behalf of respondent no.1,
3 CRIWP319.17.odt
submitted that due to amendment being undertaken by the
Government Of Maharashtra in Parole and Furlough Rules, the
application of the petitioner was returned to the prison authority. It
is not rejected. Hence, the petition is liable to be rejected. The reply
on behalf of respondent no.1 is taken on record.
6] As per the submissions of the respondents, the
application is not decided. It is returned to prison authority.
7] Looking to the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the respondents ought to have granted parole leave to
the petitioner. Hence, we allow this writ petition in terms of prayer
clause (a) with a direction to the respondents to release the applicant
on parole leave within a period of two weeks in accordance with law
and on usual conditions.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
Fees of the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner
is quantified at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand Five hundred only)
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
