Vitthal Shankar Dombe vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8868 Bom

                                                                            26. wp 3381.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3381 OF 2017

                 Vitthal Shankar Dombe                           .. Petitioner
                       Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra                      .. Respondent

                 Ms.Rohini M. Dandekar, for the Petitioner.
                 Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP  for State.


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

20th NOVEMBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V .K.TAHILRAMANI , J.) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

14/06/2016 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said

application was granted. The petitioner was released on parole

on 05/08/2016 for a period of 30 days. Thereafter the

petitioner preferred first application for extension of parole on

15/08/2016 for a period of 30 days i.e. from 05/09/2016 to

04/10/2016. The petitioner did not receive any reply to the

26. wp 3381.17.doc

said application. Thereafter the petitioner preferred 2 nd

application for extension of parole on 19/09/2016 wherein he

sought further extension of 30 days. Meanwhile, since the

extended period sought by the petitioner was over, he himself

surrendered back to the prison on 04/11/2016. After the

petitioner surrendered, he received communication dated

02/12/2016 in relation to his applications for extension of

parole. In the said communication, it was stated that as per

notification dated 26/08/2016, parole can be granted in a year

for 45 days and in exceptional circumstance, extension of 15

days can be granted. Hence, the petitioner was granted

extension of parole for further period of 15 days only.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that

the application of the petitioner is dated 14/06/2016 and

pursuant to this application, the petitioner was released on

parole on 05/08/2016 i.e. much prior to the notification dated

26/08/2016. Thus, she submitted that this notification cannot

be made retrospectively applicable to the petitioner. We find the

26. wp 3381.17.doc

contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner to be

correct. The notification dated 26/08/2016 cannot be made

retrospectively applicable to the petitioner. At the time the

petitioner preferred an application for parole as per law which

prevailed at that time, he was eligible to be released on parole

for 30 days with further extension of thirty plus thirty i.e.

extension of sixty days. Thus, he would have been released on

parole for total period of 90 days. Looking to these facts, we are

inclined to extend the parole period by thirty plus thirty days i.e.

uptil 04/11/2016. Any prison punishment imposed on account

of overstay is set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above

terms.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)