Bombay High Court
Babarao Vishram Solanke (C-1169) vs Special Police Inspector General ... on 8 January, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:361-DB
1 910.wp.774.23-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 774 OF 2023
Babarao Vishram Solanke (C-1169),
Aged about 63 years, Occ.: NA,
R/o. Post Jambha Bk. Tah. Murtizapur,
Distt. Akola. ... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Special Police Inspector General (Prison),
East Region, Nagpur.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. R. A. Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. N. R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED :- 08.01.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : VINAY JOSHI, J.):-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner has applied for regular parole. However, it has
been rejected by the respondent No.1 Special Police Inspector General
Prison, Nagpur vide order dated 31.08.2023.
2 910.wp.774.23-J.odt
3. The State while rejecting the petition, prominently pointed out
that as and when the petitioner was released on parole in past, he never
surrendered on due date but each time he was required to brought back by
way of arrest.
4. The petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under
Section 302, 376, 366, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has
undergone imprisonment for 7 years and 3 months. The petitioner stated
some personal reason as to why he has not returned jail on due date. The
State has categorically pointed out that earlier the petitioner was released
on parole in the year 1995, 1998, 2000 and 2003 and at relevant time he
has overstayed for 78, 175, 924 and 5509 days respectively. Moreover on
each occasion he was required to be arrested and brought back to the
prison.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner heavily relied on
the decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Bhauraoji Tarar Vs. The
D.I.G. (P)(E) Nagpur & Another (Criminal Writ Petition No.214/2018) to
contend that under similar circumstances, this Court has condoned the
lapses and allowed to release the petitioner on parole. We are not much
impressed by the said order since it is a question of fact to be decided on a
case to case basis. More strikingly, when the petitioner was released in the
year 2003 he went absconding for more than 10 years that too was brought
3 910.wp.774.23-J.odt
back by way of arrest. True, now for more than 5 years he has not been
released. However, considering his past and propensity to abscond each
time, we are not inclined to grant prole at present time. The petitioner may
apply for parole after one year, which would be considered appropriately.
6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
7. Rule accordingly.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/01/2024 14:50:32
