Ganesh Bachhu Valvi vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 6908 Bom

osk                                                                                                             21-wp-3183-2017.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3183 OF 2017

Ganesh Bachhu Valvi                                                               ...           Petitioner
           V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                                          ...           Respondent

• Mr.Prosper D'Souza, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner. • Mr.Arfan Sait, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.

DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2017.

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

1]                     Heard both sides. 


2]                     The Petitioner has preferred an application for parole on

11/11/2016. The said application was rejected on 20/03/2017. Being

aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was

dismissed by order dated 12/06/2017; hence this petition.

3] The application of the Petitioner for parole came to be

rejected on the ground that in view of "Notification" dated

osk 21-wp-3183-2017.odt

26/08/2016, if a person is sentenced to life and whose sentence

exceeds 14 years, he would be considered for first release on regular

parole after completing 3 years of imprisonment after the date of

conviction. The Petitioner has been convicted under Section 302 read

with 34 of Indian Penal Code by judgment and order dated

18/02/2016. Thus, the period of 3 years from the date of conviction

has not yet lapsed.

4] In this view of the matter, we cannot find any error in the

order of Authorities, stating that as the Petitioner has not undergone

necessary period of imprisonment after his conviction, he is not

eligible to grant parole. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the

impugned order.

5]                     Rule is discharged. 



(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.)    (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)