Satish Vaijanath Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3016 Bom

 jdk                                                   1                                                 19.crwp.2183.17.j.doc


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2183 OF 2017


Mr. Satish Vaijanath Pawar                                                      ]
Aged about 42 years,                                                            ]
Indian Inhabitant, Resident of                                                  ]
At post Jamga, Tal. Nilenga,                                                    ]
Dist. Latur                                                                     ].. Petitioner

                    Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra                                                     ]
   to be served through                                                         ]
   Public Prosecutor, High Court,                                               ]
   (A.S.) Mumbai                                                                ]
2. The Divisional Commissioner,                                                 ]
   Nashik,                                                                      ]
3. The Superintendent of Nashik,                                                ]
   Central Prison, Nashik                                                       ].. Respondents

                             ....
Mr. Vikram Tare Patil Advocate for Petitioner
Mrs.G.P.Mulekar A.P.P. for the State
                             ....


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

DATED : JUNE 09, 2017

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

1 Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board.

2                   Heard both sides.



                                                                                                    1   of  3





  jdk                                                   2                                                 19.crwp.2183.17.j.doc

3                   Rule.          By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith

and matter is finally heard.



4                   The petitioner had preferred an application for parole

on the ground of illness of his wife which came to be granted by

order dated 3.5.2017. The petitioner was released on parole for

a period of 30 days. The petitioner is now seeking extension of

parole for a period of 60 days.

5 Reliance is placed on medical certificate dated

5.6.2017 which shows that the wife of the applicant may

require angiography and angioplasty. The petitioner was

released on parole for a period of 30 days. In this period, he

could have very well taken all the necessary steps, however, he

has not done so. The medical report, according to the learned

counsel for the petitioner, also does not show the reason why

angiography and angioplasty could not have been done within a

period of 30 days when the petitioner was on parole.

6 When an application for extension of parole is

preferred, it has to be preferred to the Divisional Commissioner,

2 of 3

jdk 3 19.crwp.2183.17.j.doc

however, the petitioner has only made a vague averment in his

petition that he tried to serve the application for extension of

parole, however, it was not accepted. No details such as date

when he tried to serve the application for extension of parole,

the time, the person to whom it was given and who refused the

same, are given. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined

to directly entertain this petition for extension of parole.

7 Rule is discharged. Petition is dismissed.

[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

kandarkar

3 of 3