Kumar @ Kalya Kumar Chinnu ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8118 Bom

                                                                                 20. wp 3778.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3778 OF 2017

                 Kumar @ Kalya Kumar Chinnu Devendra                         .. Petitioner
                      Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra                                  .. Respondent

                 Ms.Rohini M. Dandekar, for the Petitioner.
                 Mr.Arfan Sait,  APP  for State.


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

12th OCTOBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.

V .K.TAHILRAMANI , J.) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

13/04/2015 on the ground of illness of his wife. The parole was

granted to the petitioner by order dated 16/07/2015. Pursuant

thereto, the petitioner was released on parole on 01/08/2015

for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred

application for extension of parole for further period of 30 days.

The said application was granted. Thereafter, the petitioner

20. wp 3778.17.doc

preferred 2nd application for extension of parole. The said

application reached the Competent Authority i.e. Divisional

Commissioner on 21/09/2015. In fact the application has to

reach to the Competent Authority by 15/09/2015, thus it is seen

that there was delay in sending this application.

3. The petitioner surrendered on 12/11/2015 i.e. after

over stay of 42 days. When he surrendered on 12/11/2015, he

gave a letter to the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik stating that

his son was ill hence he has gone to his native place to meet his

son, hence, he could not return in time. However, it is seen that

no medical certificate to support the stand taken by the

petitioner that his son was ill was produced before the authority

nor annexed to this Petition.

4. It is also seen that the petitioner has relied on the

railway reservation ticket which is annexed to the Petition which

shows that it is from Salem Junction in Tamilnadu to Lokmanya

Tilak Terminus, Mumbai. It shows that the ticket is of

20. wp 3778.17.doc

09/11/2015. Learned APP pointed out when the petitioner was

released on parole by order dated 16/07/2015, one of the

conditions imposed on the petitioner was that he will not leave

the jurisdiction of Wadala T.T. Police Station, Mumbai without

prior permission of the Police Inspector of Wadala T.T. police

station. He submitted that no such permission was sought by

the petitioner before going to Tamilnadu. Thus, the petitioner

has flouted condition imposed on him. Learned APP pointed out

that there was another condition imposed on the petitioner that

during the period the petitioner was on parole, he will report

every day to Wadala T.T. police station, Mumbai. However, the

petitioner has not reported to Wadala T.T. police station during

the entire period when the petitioner was out side the prison.

Thus, it is seen that only in the initial period, he reported to the

police station and thereafter he has not reported to the police

station. Thus, it is seen that one more condition on which the

petitioner was released on parole was flouted by the petitioner.

Looking all these facts, we are not inclined to exercise our

discretion to extend the period of parole. Hence, rule is

20. wp 3778.17.doc

discharged.

5. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner

who is in the Nashik Road Central Prison.

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