Ramkumar S/O Vaidyanath Pal vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2507 Bom

 Judgment                                  1                         Cri.W.P.26.2021.odt


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

                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 26 OF 2021


          Ramkumar S/o Vaidyanath Pal,
          Aged about 45 years, Occu. - Nil,
          Presently detained in Central
          Prison, Amravati, Tah. and
          District Amravati.
          Convict No. C-2630.

                                                              .... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

 1)       State of Maharashtra,
          through its Secretary,
          Department of Home,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

 2)       Divisional Commissioner,
          Amravati Division, Amravati.

 3)       Superintendent of Jail Prison,
          Central Jail, Amravati,
          Tah. And District Amravati.

 4)       Commissioner of Police,
          Amravati, Tah. and Dist.
          Amravati.
                                               .... RESPONDENTS
  ______________________________________________________________
      Ms Deepa Charlewar, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner.
      Shri N. R. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
 ______________________________________________________________

                           CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                   AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 08.02.2021.

Judgment 2 Cri.W.P.26.2021.odt

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

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing

for the parties.

3. The parole leave was sought by the petitioner on the

ground of illness of his mother. However, the admitted facts which are

on record indicate that she was admitted to hospital on 23.01.2020 and

was discharged from the hospital on 29.01.2020. The purpose for

which parole was sought by the petitioner is now not in existence and

therefore, this fact has also been noted in the impugned order. As such,

we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The petition stands

dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for

grant of parole and furlough, as the case may be, on the ground of

change circumstances.

Rule is discharged.

Legal remuneration of Rs.2,500/- (Rs. Two Thousand Five

Hundred only) be paid to the learned appointed counsel for the

petitioner.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)

Kirtak