Bombay High CourtWP/1463/2017rule absolute

Ramesh Gopinath Munde v. The State Of Maharashtra

2017-06-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep Kashinath Shinde,Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.K. Tahilramani4 pages

* 1/4 * 39-WP-1463-2017.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1463 OF 2017 Ramesh Gopinath Munde ......Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra .......Respondent Ms. Rohini Dandekar, Advocate appointed for Petitioner. Mr. H.J.Dedia , APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM :

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :

June 28, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.] ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.] The petitioner preferred an application for parole The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 18.5.2016 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said on 18.5.2016 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was granted by order dated 28.6.2016. application was granted by order dated 28.6.2016. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was released on Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was released on parole on 4.8.2016 for a period of 30 days, I.e, parole was parole on 4.8.2016 for a period of 30 days, I.e, parole was granted till 2.9.2016 and the petitioner had to surrender on granted till 2.9.2016 and the petitioner had to surrender on 3.9.2016. In the meanwhile, the petitioner preferred first 3.9.2016.

* 2/4 * 39-WP-1463-2017.doc was extended till 2.10.2016. Thereafter, on 16.9.2016, the was extended till 2.10.2016. Thereafter, on 16.9.2016, the petitioner preferred second application for extension of petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole for a further period of 30 days on the ground of parole for a further period of 30 days on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was rejected by illness of his wife. The said application was rejected by order dated 18.10.2016. Meanwhile, the petitioner order dated 18.10.2016. Meanwhile, the petitioner surrendered on 2.11.2016 as soon as extended period of surrendered on 2.11.2016 as soon as extended period of parole which he sought for 30 days was over. Being parole which he sought for 30 days was over. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 18.10.2016, the aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 18.10.2016, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed , hence, this petition.

dismissed , hence, this petition.

The petitioner has relied upon medical The petitioner has relied upon medical certificates which show that wife of the petitioner has been certificates which show that wife of the petitioner has been advised surgery in the second week of October. advised surgery in the second week of October. Genuineness of these medical certificates is not doubted Genuineness of these medical certificates is not doubted by the respondent. However, the application of the by the respondent. However, the application of the petitioner for extension of parole came to be rejected in petitioner for extension of parole came to be rejected in view of the Notification dated 26.8.2016 which states that view of the Notification dated 26.8.2016 which states that parole period can be extended only for a period of 60 days.

parole period can be extended only for a period of 60 days. However, it is noticed that when the petitioner preferred However, it is noticed that when the petitioner preferred first application for parole, it was preferred on 18.5.2016, first application for parole, it was preferred on 18.5.2016, i.e. much prior to this Notification dated 28.6.2016 hence, i.e. much prior to this Notification dated 28.6.

* 3/4 * 39-WP-1463-2017.doc this Notification cannot be made applicable to the this Notification cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. It is also noticed that as soon as 30 days period petitioner. It is also noticed that as soon as 30 days period was over, the petitioner surrendered on 2.11.2016. Had the was over, the petitioner surrendered on 2.11.2016. Had the petitioner been informed of rejection immediately, he petitioner been informed of rejection immediately, he would have surrendered back to the prison immediately. would have surrendered back to the prison immediately.

However, this rejection letter was not communicated to the However, this rejection letter was not communicated to the petitioner and It came to the knowledge of the petitioner petitioner and It came to the knowledge of the petitioner only after he surrendered back to the prison. Looking to the only after he surrendered back to the prison. Looking to the fact that genuineness of the medical certificates is not fact that genuineness of the medical certificates is not doubted which certificates show that wife of the petitioner doubted which certificates show that wife of the petitioner requires surgery and the fact that original application of the requires surgery and the fact that original application of the petitioner for parole was prior to the Notification dated petitioner for parole was prior to the Notification dated 28.6.

2016, we are inclined to extend parole period for 28.6.2016, we are inclined to extend parole period for further period of 30 days.

further period of 30 days.

Ordered accordingly.

Any prison punishment imposed on the Any prison punishment imposed on the Petitioner on account of over stay is set aside. Petitioner on account of over stay is set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

Rule is made absolute in above terms.

* 4/4 * 39-WP-1463-2017.doc Office to communicate this order to the jail Office to communicate this order to the jail authorities, i.e., Yerwada Open District Prison Class-I, Pune. authorities, i.e., Yerwada Open District Prison Class-I, Pune. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)