Anup Dattaji Khandale vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr Deputy ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2333 Bom

                                                                                        1
                                                                             wp47.2021.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.


                      CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.47/2021


 Anup Dattaji Khandale,
 Convict No.C/8996, aged 28 Yrs.,
 Occ. Nil, Confined at Central Prison,
 Nagpur.                                                                       ..Petitioner.

          ..Vs..

 1.       State of Maharashtra,
          through Deputy Inspector General
          of Prison, East Region, Nagpur.

 2.       The Superintendent,
          Central Prison, Nagpur.                                             ..Respondents.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri S.D. Wankhede, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Ms N.R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                            AVINASH G. GHAROTE , JJ.

DATED :- 4.2.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent.

2. The petitioner was released on parole on 7.8.2015 but did

not surrender himself before the prison authorities on the due date

and was required to be arrested and brought back to the prison after a

wp47.2021.odt

delay of 144 days. He was brought back in this fashion on 29.1.2016.

For such indisciplined act of the petitioner, offence relating to Section

224 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner and

it is pending. It is an admitted fact that either before expiry of the

parole leave or even after expiry of the parole leave, the petitioner did

not apply for extension of his parole leave. Such conduct of the

petitioner would be squarely hit by rule 4(6) of the Prisons (Bombay

Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959 which states that a prisoner whose

work and conduct is, in the opinion of the Superintendent of the

prison, not satisfactory, would not be eligible for his release on parole.

3. Thus, we find that there is no merit in the petition. The

petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

                               JUDGE                                    JUDGE




 Tambaskar.