Bombay High CourtWP/2762/2017rule absolute

Manik Ananta Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2017-07-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep Kashinath Shinde,Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.K. Tahilramani5 pages

* 1/5 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2762 OF 2017 Manik A. Patil ......Petitioner V/s.

State of Maharashtra .......Respondent Mr. N.N.Gawankar i/by Mr. Manas N. Gawankar , Advocates for Petitioner.

Ms. R.M.Gadhvi, APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM :

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

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :

July 19, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.] ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.] Heard both sides.

Heard both sides.

Rule Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable . By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

The petitioner preferred an application for parole The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his wife. The petitioner was on the ground of illness of his wife. The petitioner was granted parole by this Court by order dated 5.5.2017. granted parole by this Court by order dated 5.5.2017. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was released on parole on Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was released on parole on

* 2/5 * 23.5.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an 23.5.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for extension of parole for 30 days. Pursuant to application for extension of parole for 30 days. Pursuant to the said application by order dated 20.6.2017, extension of the said application by order dated 20.6.2017, extension of parole was granted for 15 days only. On receiving this parole was granted for 15 days only. On receiving this order, the petitioner preferred another application on order, the petitioner preferred another application on 30.6.2017 for extension of parole for a further period of 15 30.6.2017 for extension of parole for a further period of 15 days. This application was rejected by order dated days. This application was rejected by order dated 13.7.2017 hence, this petition.

13.7.2017 hence, this petition.

The application of the petitioner for extension of The application of the petitioner for extension of parole was rejected mainly on the ground that in view of parole was rejected mainly on the ground that in view of the Notification dated 26.8.2016, parole for a period of 45 the Notification dated 26.8.2016, parole for a period of 45 days only can be granted and only in exceptional days only can be granted and only in exceptional circumstances, parole can be granted upto 60 days and circumstances, parole can be granted upto 60 days and according to respondents, as there was no exceptional according to respondents, as there was no exceptional circumstance, the extension was not granted for total 30 circumstance, the extension was not granted for total 30 days but only for 15 days. As far as this ground is days but only for 15 days.

As far as this ground is concerned, Notification dated 26.8.2016 would not be concerned, Notification dated 26.8.2016 would not be applicable to the petitioner because this Court in its order applicable to the petitioner because this Court in its order dated 5.5.2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1503 of 2017 dated 5.5.2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No.

* 3/5 * application of the petitioner was not preferred on application of the petitioner was not preferred on 26.8.2016 as contended by the respondents but infact 26.8.2016 as contended by the respondents but infact application was preferred on 10.8.2016 which date is prior application was preferred on 10.8.2016 which date is prior to the Notification. Hence, this Court held that in such case, to the Notification. Hence, this Court held that in such case, Notification dated 26.8.2016 would not apply to the Notification dated 26.8.2016 would not apply to the petitioner. Hence, the first ground on which the application petitioner. Hence, the first ground on which the application of the petitioner for extension of parole was rejected has no of the petitioner for extension of parole was rejected has no merit.

merit.

The second ground on which application for The second ground on which application for extension of parole was rejected was that extension was extension of parole was rejected was that extension was sought on the ground that the wife of the petitioner was sought on the ground that the wife of the petitioner was ailing and it was found that the wife of the petitioner is hale ailing and it was found that the wife of the petitioner is hale and hearty. The third ground on which extension of parole and hearty. The third ground on which extension of parole was rejected was that the application for extension of was rejected was that the application for extension of parole was made after delay of 11 days.

parole was made after delay of 11 days.

Thus, the second ground for rejection of the Thus, the second ground for rejection of the application for extension of parole for 15 days is that wife application for extension of parole for 15 days is that wife of the petitioner is hale and hearty. As far as this aspect is of the petitioner is hale and hearty. As far as this aspect is concerned, medical papers show that wife of the petitioner concerned, medical papers show that wife of the petitioner

* 4/5 * is scheduled for surgery on 19.7.2017. In such case, it is scheduled for surgery on 19.7.2017. In such case, it cannot be said that she is hale and hearty. Thus, this cannot be said that she is hale and hearty. Thus, this ground is without substance.

ground is without substance.

Third ground for rejecting application of the Third ground for rejecting application of the petitioner for extension of parole is there is delay of 11 petitioner for extension of parole is there is delay of 11 days in preferring application for extension of parole. As far days in preferring application for extension of parole. As far as this ground is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner as this ground is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner had initially sought extension of parole for 30 days. This had initially sought extension of parole for 30 days. This was decided by order dated 20.6.2017 and only extension was decided by order dated 20.6.2017 and only extension of 15 days was granted. The petitioner did not contemplate of 15 days was granted.

The petitioner did not contemplate that extension of only 15 days would be granted to him that extension of only 15 days would be granted to him hence, when he got the order stating that he got extension hence, when he got the order stating that he got extension of parole for a period of 15 days only immediately of parole for a period of 15 days only immediately thereafter he preferred an application for extension of thereafter he preferred an application for extension of parole for further period of 15 days. It was in such case parole for further period of 15 days. It was in such case that the delay had occurred.

that the delay had occurred.

Looking to all the above facts on humanitarian Looking to all the above facts on humanitarian ground, we are inclined to extend parole for a further ground, we are inclined to extend parole for a further period of 15 days. Since the extended period of parole period of 15 days. Since the extended period of parole

* 5/5 * expires on 22.7.2017, the petitioner shall surrender back to expires on 22.7.2017, the petitioner shall surrender back to the prison on 23.7.2017. It is made clear that no further the prison on 23.7.2017. It is made clear that no further extension would be granted.

extension would be granted.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)