Balasaheb Laxman Dabhade vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8126 Bom

                                                                             19. wp 3777.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3777  OF 2017

                 Balasaheb Laxman Dabhade                        .. Petitioner
                      Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra                      .. Respondent

                 Mr. Prosper D'Souza, 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

24/12/2016 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said

application came to be rejected by order dated 13/04/2017.

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.

The Appeal was dismissed by order dated 30/06/2017. Hence,

this Appeal.

3. The petitioner is undergoing imprisonment as he has

19. wp 3777.17.doc

been convicted under section 377 of IPC for committing

unnatural sexual act on minor child. His application for parole

came to be rejected as he was convicted under Sections 377 IPC.

4. Learned APP placed reliance on the notification

dated 01/12/2015 which states that prisoners who have been

convicted under Sections 376 or 377 of IPC shall not be eligible

to be released on furlough. Thereafter reliance is placed on the

notification dated 26/08/2016 wherein it is stated that under

Rule 19, all the prisoners eligible for furlough shall be eligible

for regular parole. Learned APP submitted that in view of the

notification dated 01/12/2015, the petitioner would not have

been entitled to be released on furlough. Hence, in view of

notification dated 26/08/2016, the petitioner would not be

eligible to be released on parole. In view of these notifications,

no error can be found in the orders of the Authority dated

13/04/2017 and 30/06/2017. Thus, no case is made out for

interference. Rule is discharged.

19. wp 3777.17.doc

5. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner

who is in Nashik Road Central Prison.

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