Somnath Mangal Pawshe vs The Superintendent And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 2118 Bom

                                                                                    5. cri wp 1776-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1776 OF 2017


            Somnath Mangal Pawshe                                          .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The Superintendent,
            Kolhapur Central Prison & Ors.                                 .. Respondents

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. B.G. Tangsali Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP for the State
                                                    ...................



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

DATE : MAY 2, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made

returnable forthwith and the matter is head finally.

3. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

25.5.2016 on the ground of illness of his wife which is

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 2

5. cri wp 1776-17.doc

granted on 19.7.2016 and the petitioner was granted parole

for a period of 30 days. The grievance of the petitioner is

that though he was granted parole by order dated 19.7.2016,

he was not released as on 26.8.2016, amended rules came

into force whereby instead of one surety, it was required to

furnish two sureties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

petitioner has already furnished two sureties, yet he has not

been released on parole.

5. The petitioner has already furnished two sureties,

however, in any event, as the application of the petitioner

was prior to the amended rule, the amended rule would not

apply to his case. In this view of the matter, the petitioner to

be released on parole on the terms and conditions as set out

in the order dated 19.7.2016.

6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

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



jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          2 of 2