Preetam Thakaram Lalgude vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 672 Bom

                                                                                    8. cri wp 320-17.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 320 OF 2017


            Preetam Thakaram Lalgude                                      .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. Indrayani M. Koparkar Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedia             APP for the State
                                       ...................


                              CORAM        : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                               REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 10, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner was granted parole. The petitioner

sought extension of parole, however, according to the

petitioner, he was not informed about the decision taken on

his application for extension of parole and instead, show

cause notice came to be issued to him for overstay of 29

days and it was proposed that 87 days of remission would be

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

8. cri wp 320-17.doc

cut for the overstay of 29 days. Being aggrieved by the

show cause notice, this petition has been preferred.

3. As far as the show cause notice is concerned, it would

be open to the petitioner to reply the same which he has

done. At this stage, it would be premature to interfere with

the show cause notice because the authorities may accept

the reply given by the petitioner and may not impose any

punishment on the petitioner.

4. Learned APP states that the application for extension of

parole preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by order

dated 26.7.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner was only orally communicated

this order after he surrendered and the copy of the order has

not been furnished to him.

5. The Jail Authorities to furnish the copy of the order to

the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner to

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

8. cri wp 320-17.doc

challenge the said order rejecting his application seeking

extension of parole. It would also be open to the petitioner

to prefer a writ petition seeking extension of parole. As

these remedies are open to the petitioner, at this stage, we

are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.

[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ]            [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                       3 of 3