Shrikant Laxman Surwase vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 1360 Bom

 jdk                                                     1                                                5.crwp.671.17.j.doc



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 671 OF 2017


Shrikant Laxman Surwase                                                         ]
Age 27 years, Occ: Nil,                                                         ]
Residing at 56, Rajashree Residency                                             ]
Solapur                                                                         ]
Prisoner No. C/16476                                                            ].. Petitioner

                    Vs.

The State of Maharashtra                                                        ]
(Through Yerawada Central Prison,                                               ]
Pune.                                                                           ]..Respondent


                              ....
Mrs. Indrayani Koparkar Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar A.P.P. for the State
                              ....


                                        CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
                                                M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 31, 2017

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

1                   Heard both sides.



2                   The petitioner preferred an application on 15.7.2015

for parole on the ground of illness of his mother.                                                              The said

application was rejected by order dated 21.9.2015. Being

1 of 3

jdk 2 5.crwp.671.17.j.doc

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The

appeal came to be allowed by order dated 4.3.2016. Pursuant

to the said order, the petitioner was released on parole on

19.3.2016 for a period of 30 days. On 30.3.2016 the petitioner

preferred an application for extension of parole for a period of

30 days. The said application was granted by order dated

17.6.2016 and the parole period was extended by a period of

30 days i.e. from 18.6.2016 to 17.5.2016. On 2.5.2016 the

petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole

for another period of 30 days. The said application was not

decided. However, in the meantime, as soon as the period of

30 days was over, the petitioner reported back to the prison

on his own on 16.6.2016.

3 The application of the petitioner for parole came to be

rejected as he did not submit any proof in relation to the illness

of his mother. However, the order of rejection itself shows that

the petitioner had submitted medical certificate to show that

his mother required angiography and angioplasty.

4                   We have perused the jail record of the petitioner. It is


                                                                                                    2   of  3





              jdk                                                     3                                                5.crwp.671.17.j.doc

seen that on three occasions, the petitioner was released on

furlough and on all the three occasions, he reported back to

the prison in time. On 8.8.2013, 27.3.2015 and 17.6.2016 the

petitioner was released on furlough and on all the occasions he

reported back to the prison in time. On 23.8.2013 the

petitioner was released on parole and he reported back on his

own to the prison two days prior to the period of parole which

was granted to him. Thereafter, the petitioner was released on

parole only in the present case. Looking to the record of the

petitioner which shows that except this occasion, on all the

occasions the petitioner has reported back in time to the

prison on is own and looking to the medical certificate and the

fact that the conduct of the petitioner is good, on humanitarian

ground we are inclined to extend the period of parole. Parole

period is extended from 17.6.2016 for a period of 30 days.

5 Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition is

disposed of.

[ M.S.KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

kandarkar

3 of 3