Pritam Thakaram Lalgude vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 3242 Bom

     jdk                                                  1                                              21.crwp.1898.17.j.doc

 


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                       CRI. APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        CRI.W.P. NO. 1898 OF 2017


    Pritam Thakaram Lalgude                                                         ]
    Age adult, Occ: Convict No.                                                     ]
    C-17050 confined in                                                             ]
    Yerawada Central Prison, Pune-6                                                 ].. Petitioner

                        Vs.

    The State of Maharashtra                                                        ]
    Through Home Secretary                                                          ]
    Home Deptt.                                                                     ]
    Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya                                                ]
    Mumbai-32.                                                                      ].. 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



                                                                                                        1   of  4





  jdk                                                  2                                              21.crwp.1898.17.j.doc

learned A.P.P. for the State.



2                   The petitioner had preferred an application for parole

on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was

granted by order dated 7.6.2016 and the petitioner was

released on parole on 13.6.2016 for a period of 30 days.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for extension

of parole on 28.6.2016 for a further period of 30 days. The said

application was rejected, hence, this petition.

3 It is an admitted fact that after the said period of 30

days was over, the petitioner returned back to the prison on his

own. Two reasons have been given for rejecting the application

for the petitioner for extension of parole. The first reason is

that if the parole period is extended, there would be danger to

the life of the complainant and there is possibility of law and

order problem. As far as this contention is concerned, it is seen

that the authorities considered all factors while granting

parole for a period of 30 days and thereafter the parole was

granted. It is informed that during this period, the petitioner

has not indulged in any criminal activities or any activities

2 of 4

jdk 3 21.crwp.1898.17.j.doc

which would cause law and order problem. Thus, we find that

there is no material to support the first ground of rejection on

which the application for extension of parole was rejected.

4 The second ground on which the application for

extension of parole was rejected is that the medical reports are

not sufficient to support the case of the petitioner for extension

of parole. We have perused the medical certificates. The first

medical certificate is issued by the Rural Hospital, Chakan,

Taluka Khed, Dist. Pune. The other certificate is from a private

hospital. Both these certificates show that the wife of the

petitioner is suffering from "P.V. Bleeding with prolapsed

uterus" and it is necessary for her to undergo surgery. Thus,

we do not find any merit in the second ground of rejection.

5 Looking to the facts of this case especially medical

certificates and the conduct of the petitioner in jail which is

stated to be good by the jail authorities, we are inclined to

extend the period of parole for a further period of 30 days. The

parole period is extended upto 12.8.2016. Prison punishment

imposed if any, for over stay, is set aside.

                                                                                                    3   of  4





              jdk                                                  4                                              21.crwp.1898.17.j.doc



            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