Ramesh Gopinath Munde vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 3715 Bom

                                  * 1/4 *      39-WP-1463-2017.doc

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1463 OF 2017


Ramesh Gopinath Munde                            ......Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                         .......Respondent


Ms. Rohini Dandekar, Advocate appointed for Petitioner.
Mr. H.J.Dedia , APP for Respondent-State.


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

DATE : June 28, 2017.

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

The petitioner preferred an application for parole

on 18.5.2016 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said

application was granted by order dated 28.6.2016.

Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was released on

parole on 4.8.2016 for a period of 30 days, I.e, parole was

granted till 2.9.2016 and the petitioner had to surrender on

3.9.2016. In the meanwhile, the petitioner preferred first

application for extension of parole that by period of 30

days, the said application was granted and parole period

Shivgan

* 2/4 * 39-WP-1463-2017.doc

was extended till 2.10.2016. Thereafter, on 16.9.2016, the

petitioner preferred second application for extension of

parole for a further period of 30 days on the ground of

illness of his wife. The said application was rejected by

order dated 18.10.2016. Meanwhile, the petitioner

surrendered on 2.11.2016 as soon as extended period of

parole which he sought for 30 days was over. Being

aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 18.10.2016, the

petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be

dismissed , hence, this petition.

2 The petitioner has relied upon medical

certificates which show that wife of the petitioner has been

advised surgery in the second week of October.

Genuineness of these medical certificates is not doubted

by the respondent. However, the application of the

petitioner for extension of parole came to be rejected in

view of the Notification dated 26.8.2016 which states that

parole period can be extended only for a period of 60 days.

However, it is noticed that when the petitioner preferred

first application for parole, it was preferred on 18.5.2016,

i.e. much prior to this Notification dated 28.6.2016 hence, Shivgan

* 3/4 * 39-WP-1463-2017.doc

this Notification cannot be made applicable to the

petitioner. It is also noticed that as soon as 30 days period

was over, the petitioner surrendered on 2.11.2016. Had the

petitioner been informed of rejection immediately, he

would have surrendered back to the prison immediately.

However, this rejection letter was not communicated to the

petitioner and It came to the knowledge of the petitioner

only after he surrendered back to the prison. Looking to the

fact that genuineness of the medical certificates is not

doubted which certificates show that wife of the petitioner

requires surgery and the fact that original application of the

petitioner for parole was prior to the Notification dated

28.6.2016, we are inclined to extend parole period for

further period of 30 days.

3                Ordered accordingly.



4                Any       prison     punishment      imposed           on      the

Petitioner on account of over stay is set aside.

5 Rule is made absolute in above terms.

                                                                             Shivgan



                                * 4/4 *        39-WP-1463-2017.doc

6                Office to communicate this order to the jail

authorities, i.e., Yerwada Open District Prison Class-I, Pune.

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

Shivgan