Surendra Shravan Bhirad (In Jail) vs Divisional Commissioner ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 686 Bom

 CWP 872.16.odt                                1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.872 OF 2016


 Surendra Shravan Bhirad,
 Convict No.C/4415,
 Presently Central Prison,
 Amravati.                                          ..             PETITIONER

                                .. VERSUS ..

 1]     Divisional Commissioner,
        Amravati Division,
        Amravati.

 2]     Jail Superintendent,
        Amravati Central Jail,
        Amravati.                                   ..          RESPONDENTS



                     ..........
 Shri Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for Petitioner,
 Shri R.S. Naik, APP for Respondents.
                     ..........

                                CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
                                        KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 10, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.R. GAVAI, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

by consent.

2] The petitioner has approached this court being

aggrieved by show cause notice dated 3.9.2016. Vide said

communication, the petitioner was called upon to show

cause as to why the period of 30 days should not be treated

as the period during which the petitioner was not on parole

and as to why punishment should not be imposed on him.

3] The petitioner came to be released on parole on

3.6.2016 for a period of 30 days on the ground of illness of

petitioner's wife. The first application made by the petitioner

for extension of parole for 30 days was allowed on the

ground raised by the petitioner. However, since the

condition of petitioner's wife did not improve, the petitioner

made second application on 22.7.2016 for extension on

second ground. However, said application was not decided

on account of new rule coming into effect on 26.8.2016.

The petitioner has surrendered on ninetieth days on

2.9.2016.

4] The respondents have now issued impugned show

cause notice on the ground that the petitioner did not

surrender on ninetieth days. The perusal of the record

would reveal that the petitioner had within the time applied

for extension by 30 days. New rule came into operation on

26.8.2016 that is much after 22.7.2016 on which the

petitioner had made an application for second extension.

In any case, the petitioner has himself surrendered on

ninetieth days which is the maximum period on which the

prisoner can be released on parole.

5] In that view of the matter, we find that the petition

deserves to be allowed. The period of 30 days for which

show cause notice is issued to the petitioner is directed to

be the period during which the petitioner was on parole.

Consequently, the impugned show cause notice stands

quashed and set aside.

(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.)

.........

Gulande, PA