Ramesh Marutrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7527 Bom

                                                                                 11. cri wp 2988-17.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2988 OF 2017


            Ramesh Marutrao Patil                                        .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                              .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. D.G. Khamkar Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
                                                  ...................



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

DATE : SEPTEMBER 25, 2017.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

28.12.2016 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said

application was rejected by order dated 17.2.2017. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The

appeal was dismissed by order dated 29.6.2017, hence, this

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4

11. cri wp 2988-17.doc

petition.

3. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be

rejected on the ground that in the year 2005, there was

overstay of 202 days on the part of the petitioner. In

addition, in the year 2009, there was overstay of one day; in

the year 2010, there was overstay of 137 days and in the

year 2014, there was overstay of 39 days. As far as the year

2014 is concerned, the petitioner was released on parole on

28.1.2014 for a period of 30 days. The said period was

extended by another 30 days. The petitioner preferred an

application for extension of parole by another period of 30

days. It is an admitted fact that the said application is still

pending. It appears that without deciding the said

application, the Authorities have considered that there is

overstay on the part of the petitioner of 39 days. Had the

said application for extension of parole been granted, there

would be overstay of only 9 days. The jail record of the last

two years of the petitioner is that on 11.12.2014, he was

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4

11. cri wp 2988-17.doc

released on furlough and he reported back to the prison on

due date on his own. Thereafter on 25.7.2016, the

petitioner was released on furlough and he reported back on

the due date to the prison on his own. The petitioner was

released on parole on 24.9.2015 and he reported back on his

own to the prison but two days late.

4. Learned APP has stated that as far as the illness of the

wife of the petitioner is concerned, the wife does have a

problem in spine for which she requires to undergo surgery.

The genuineness of the medical certificate which is relied by

the petitioner to show that his wife requires surgery is not

disputed. Looking to this fact and the conduct of the

petitioner during the past couple of years as well as the fact

that the conduct of the petitioner in prison is good, on

humanitarian ground, we are inclined to grant parole to the

petitioner.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                       3 of 4





                                                          11. cri wp 2988-17.doc

5. The petitioner to be released on parole for a period of

45 days on usual terms and conditions as set out by the

concerned Authorities. Rule is made absolute in the above

terms.

[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4