Bombay High Court
Kailas Mangal Pawshe vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 June, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 22.crwp.1899.17.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRI. APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI.W.P. NO. 1899 OF 2017
Kailas Mangal Pawshe ]
Convict No. C-5503 ]
Confined in ]
Kolhapur Central Prison, Pune-7 ].. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Home Secretary ]
Home Deptt. ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai ].. Respondent
....
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for the petitioner
Mrs.G.P.Mulekar A.P.P. for Respondent-State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
SANDEEP K.SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 15, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]:
1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
1 of 4
jdk 2 22.crwp.1899.17.j.doc
2 The petitioner had preferred an application for parole
on 27.11.2015 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said
application was granted by Home Deptt. by order dated
17.6.2016. Pursuant to the said order, the petitoiner was
released on 2.7.2016 on parole for a period of 30 days.
Thereafter the petitioner preferred applications for extension of
parole. The first application seeking extension of parole for a
period of 30 days is preferred on 13.7.2016. Thereafter he
preferred another application for extension of parole on
12.8.2016 seeking extension of parole for a further period of 30
days i.e. extension was sought till 29.9.2016. The said
applications came to be rejected on the ground that it is not
necessary to grant extension of parole on the ground of illness
of the mother of the petitioner, hence, this petition.
3 The order of rejection clearly shows that the mother of
the petitioner was suffering from cancer stage-3 and she was
operated for the same. Thereafter she was required to undergo
treatment. But as she was undergoing treatment for a long
time, the authorities felt it was not fit case to grant extension of
2 of 4
jdk 3 22.crwp.1899.17.j.doc
parole.
4 Ms. Dandekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
pointed out that the order of rejection shows that the mother of
the petitoiner was suffering from cancer. As stated earlier, the
rejection order itself shows that the mother of the petitioner
was suffering from cancer stage-3 and she was operated for the
same. The medical report of the cancer research hospital at
Raigad shows that the mother of the petitioner was required to
undergo radiation for a period of over one year. The nominal
Jail Chart of the petitioner shows that on 14.8.2014 and
29.3.2016 he was released on furlough and on both the
occasions he reported back to the prison on his own. On
12.3.2015 also the petitioner was released on furlough and he
reported back to the prison on his own though one day late.
The petitioner was also released on parole on 6.9.2013 and he
has reported back to the prison on the due date.
5 Looking to all the above facts and the good conduct of
the petitioner in jail, we are of the opinion that on humanitarian
ground the period of parole should be extended upto
3 of 4
jdk 4 22.crwp.1899.17.j.doc
29.9.2016. Accordingly, the parole period is extended upto
29.9.2016. Prison punishment imposed if any, for over stay, is
set aside.
6 Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition is
disposed of.
7 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who
is in Kolhapur Central Prison.
[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
kandarkar
4 of 4
