Pankaj Bhagwat Giri v. State Of Maharashtra

Sherla V.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2515 OF 2016 Pankaj Bhagwat Giri ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.Vilas N. Mali, for the Petitioner Mr.H.J. Dedia, APP, for Respondent - State CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE: AUGUST 2, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.): 1.

Heard both sides.

2.

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.

The petitioner is praying for parole on the ground that he has Carcinoma of Tongue. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had preferred an application for parole but it was rejected. However, it is seen that the said application was made on the ground of illness of his mother. As far as prayer for release on ground that the petitioner has carcinoma is concerned, It is seen that the petitioner has directly approached the High Court. Applications for parole are to be made to the Divisional Commissioner. He is the competent authority to decide 1 / 3

the applications for parole. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of preferring the application for parole to the Divisional Commissioner. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal and others Vs. Superintendent of Taxes Dhubri1, has observed that when there is an alternate remedy, writ petition should not be entertained.

4.

Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in cases of parole, a person can directly approach the High Court. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India and others2. However, on going through the said decision, it is seen that it concerns a case of preventive detention under COFEPOSA Act. The present case is not a case of preventive detention but it is a case of simple parole being sought by the convict. Hence, this decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 5.

As stated earlier, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of preferring an application for parole to the concerned authority. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.

6.

However, if the petitioner prefers an application for parole, the said application is to be decided as expeditiously as possible by the concerned AIR 1962 SC 1419 AIR 2000 SC 1023 2 / 3

authority. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) 3 / 3