Pandurang Jyotiba Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 8050 Bom

 jdk                                                1                                              18.crwp.1786.17.j.doc

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1786 OF 2017

Pandurang Jyotiba Patil                                                         ]
Age 63 years, Occ: Nil                                                          ]
Resident of "306"                                                               ]
"Vijaymala Sadan" Nagardale                                                     ]
Tal. Chandgad, Dist. Kolhapur                                                   ]
416508                                                                          ].. Petitioner

                    Vs.

     1) The State of Maharashtra                                                ]
                                                                                ]
     2) The Superintendent,                                                     ]
        Kolhapur Central Prison,                                                ]
        Kolhapur                                                                ].. Respondents


                               ....
Mr. D.G. Khamkar Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
                               ....


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

DATED : OCTOBER 11, 2017

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

1                   Heard both sides.



2                   The petitioner preferred an application for parole. The

said application was granted by order dated 11.3.2016.

Pursuant to the order granting parole, the petitioner was

released on parole on 10.5.2016 for a period of 30 days.

                                                                                                    1   of  3





  jdk                                                2                                              18.crwp.1786.17.j.doc

Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for extension

of parole on the ground that he was still undergoing medical

treatment. Pursuant to the said application, extension was

granted from 10.6.2016 to 9.7.2016. Thereafter the petitioner

preferred second application for extension of parole on

23.6.2016. The said application was made within time,

however, the said application came to be rejected on 6.9.2016.

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the

present writ petition.

3 The ground on which the second extension of parole

was sought was that the treatment of the petitioner was not yet

complete. He was undergoing treatment for his mental

condition and the treatment was going on. In support of this

contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on the medical certificate dated 21.6.2016. The copy

of the said certificate is taken on record and marked "X" for

identification.

4 We have perused the jail record of the petitioner and

the record shows that on 28.5.2010, 10.5.2010, 19.7.2014 and

2 of 3

jdk 3 18.crwp.1786.17.j.doc

4.7.2016 the petitioner was released on furlough. On all

occasions, he has reported back on his own on the due date to

the prison. The jail record further shows that the petitioner was

released on parole on 17.1.2011, 28.5.2012 and 29.8.2013 on

parole. On all the three occasions, he has reported back on the

due date on his own to the prison. Thus, it is seen that the

present case is the only case where the extension of parole was

not granted to the petitioner. In view of the jail record of the

petitioner and the fact that it is not controverted that the

petitioner is suffering from mental problem and his conduct in

the jail which is reported to be good, on humanitarian ground,

we extend the period of parole from 10.7.2016 to 8.8.2016.

Prison punishment if any, imposed on account of the said

overstay, is set aside.

5 Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute

in above terms.

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

kandarkar

3 of 3