Manik Ananta Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 2383 Bom

                                                                                    5. cri wp 1503-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1503 OF 2017


            Manik Ananta Patil                                             .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                .. Respondents

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. N.N. Gawankar i/by
            Mr. Manas N. Gawankar Advocte for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar      APP for the State
                                                    ...................



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

DATE : MAY 5, 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 heard finally.

3. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the

ground of illness of his wife. The said application was

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5

5. cri wp 1503-17.doc

rejected by order dated 16.11.2016. Being aggrieved

thereby, he preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be

dismissed by order dated 8.3.2017, hence, this petition.

4. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be

rejected on the ground that in view of the Notification dated

26.8.2016, the persons who are convicted under TADA Act,

cannot be released on parole. It is noticed that in the

petition in paragraph 4, it is specifically stated that that the

petitioner applied for parole leave on 10.8.2016. Thus, this

notification would not apply retrospectively.

5. Learned APP submitted that in fact on 10.8.2016, the

petitioner preferred an application that he may be granted

permission to be released on parole and thereafter, he

preferred his application for parole on 26.8.2016, hence, on

26.8.2016, in view of the notification, he cannot be released

on parole as he has been convicted under TADA.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                       2 of 5





                                                           5. cri wp 1503-17.doc

6. We have perused the jail record. We found therein the

application of the petitioner dated 10.8.2016 wherein he has

stated that his wife is ill, hence he may be granted

permission to go on parole. We find that this itself

constitutes the application. Moreover, medical certificate

dated 8.8.2016 is annexed to support the claim that his wife

has some medical problems i.e infected ovaries for which she

has been advised operation.

7. Learned APP submitted that the application is dated

26.8.2016. To support this contention, she relied on

communication dated 26.8.2016 which is addressed by the

Superintendent of Yerwada Central Prison to the Divisional

Commissioner, Pune. On perusal of the said document, we

find that by the said document, police report relating to the

petitioner has been called. On the very same document, we

find the signature of the petitioner which is dated 12.8.2016.

Looking to the record produced before us, we find it is

difficult to hold that the petitioner preferred an application

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

5. cri wp 1503-17.doc

on 26.8.2016. In fact, the papers show that the application is

dated 10.8.2016. In such case, notification dated 26.8.2016

would not apply to the petitioner.

8. The jail record of the petitioner shows that he was

released on parole from the year 2001 to the year 2015 and

on all the occasions, except one occasion, he has reported

back to the prison in time. It is seen that on 26.5.2011 when

he was released on parole, he reported back 29 days late to

the prison, however, it is noticed that he has surrendered on

his own to the prison. Thereafter, on three occasions, he has

been released on parole i.e 3.10.2012, 10.1.2014 and

5.6.2015 and he has been reported back to the prison in

time. It is further seen that since the year 2010 to 2016, the

petitioner has been released on furlough seven times and

except one occasion i.e on 30.8.2013, he has reported back

in time. When he was released on 30.8.2013, he reported

back to the prison on his own though one day late.

Thereafter, it is seen that the petitioner was released on

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

5. cri wp 1503-17.doc

furlough on 22.10.2014 and 4.4.2016 and he reported back

to the prison in time.

9. Looking to all the above facts, we are inclined to grant

parole to the petitioner. The petitioner to be released on

parole for a period of 30 days as per the terms and

conditions imposed by the competent authority.

10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

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




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          5 of 5