Manik Ananta Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 4753 Bom

                                 * 1/5 *     5-WP-2762-2017.doc

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2762 OF 2017


Manik A. Patil                                ......Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra                          .......Respondent


Mr. N.N.Gawankar i/by Mr. Manas N. Gawankar , Advocates
for Petitioner.
Ms. R.M.Gadhvi, APP for Respondent-State.


                          CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
                                  SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : July 19, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.]

Heard both sides.

2 Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable

forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

3 The petitioner preferred an application for parole

on the ground of illness of his wife. The petitioner was

granted parole by this Court by order dated 5.5.2017.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was released on parole on Shivgan

* 2/5 * 5-WP-2762-2017.doc

23.5.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an

application for extension of parole for 30 days. Pursuant to

the said application by order dated 20.6.2017, extension of

parole was granted for 15 days only. On receiving this

order, the petitioner preferred another application on

30.6.2017 for extension of parole for a further period of 15

days. This application was rejected by order dated

13.7.2017 hence, this petition.

4 The application of the petitioner for extension of

parole was rejected mainly on the ground that in view of

the Notification dated 26.8.2016, parole for a period of 45

days only can be granted and only in exceptional

circumstances, parole can be granted upto 60 days and

according to respondents, as there was no exceptional

circumstance, the extension was not granted for total 30

days but only for 15 days. As far as this ground is

concerned, Notification dated 26.8.2016 would not be

applicable to the petitioner because this Court in its order

dated 5.5.2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1503 of 2017

preferred by the petitioner has observed that the

Shivgan

* 3/5 * 5-WP-2762-2017.doc

application of the petitioner was not preferred on

26.8.2016 as contended by the respondents but infact

application was preferred on 10.8.2016 which date is prior

to the Notification. Hence, this Court held that in such case,

Notification dated 26.8.2016 would not apply to the

petitioner. Hence, the first ground on which the application

of the petitioner for extension of parole was rejected has no

merit.

5 The second ground on which application for

extension of parole was rejected was that extension was

sought on the ground that the wife of the petitioner was

ailing and it was found that the wife of the petitioner is hale

and hearty. The third ground on which extension of parole

was rejected was that the application for extension of

parole was made after delay of 11 days.

6 Thus, the second ground for rejection of the

application for extension of parole for 15 days is that wife

of the petitioner is hale and hearty. As far as this aspect is

concerned, medical papers show that wife of the petitioner

Shivgan

* 4/5 * 5-WP-2762-2017.doc

is scheduled for surgery on 19.7.2017. In such case, it

cannot be said that she is hale and hearty. Thus, this

ground is without substance.

7 Third ground for rejecting application of the

petitioner for extension of parole is there is delay of 11

days in preferring application for extension of parole. As far

as this ground is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner

had initially sought extension of parole for 30 days. This

was decided by order dated 20.6.2017 and only extension

of 15 days was granted. The petitioner did not contemplate

that extension of only 15 days would be granted to him

hence, when he got the order stating that he got extension

of parole for a period of 15 days only immediately

thereafter he preferred an application for extension of

parole for further period of 15 days. It was in such case

that the delay had occurred.

8 Looking to all the above facts on humanitarian

ground, we are inclined to extend parole for a further

period of 15 days. Since the extended period of parole

Shivgan

* 5/5 * 5-WP-2762-2017.doc

expires on 22.7.2017, the petitioner shall surrender back to

the prison on 23.7.2017. It is made clear that no further

extension would be granted.

9 Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)

Shivgan