Ganesh Chanavirgonda Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

jdk 1 9a.cri.wp.4512.14.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4512 OF 2014 Ganesh Chanvirgonda Patil .. Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

.. Respondents ....

Ms. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Smt. V.R. Bhonsale A.P.P. for the State ....

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 16, 2016 ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:

Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

The grievance of the petitioner is that whenever he applied for parole or furlough, the police authorities gave a stock report. It was stated in the said reports that (1) if the petitioner is released, he may cause disturbance to public peace and tranquility, (2) if he is released, he may indulge in crime and (3) if he is released, there is danger to the life of the

jdk 2 9a.cri.wp.4512.14.doc witnesses. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of this stock police report, his applications for parole / furlough were rejected. Due to such stock reports, he is under severe mental tension, hence, the petitioner has prayed that whenever an application for furlough or parole is preferred, such stock police reports should not be submitted and the report should be submitted as per the true facts and circumstances.

The learned A.P.P. has handed over a copy of Jail Chart. The said Jail Chart is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. On going through the record, we find that the grievance of the petitioner has no basis because the petitioner has been released earlier on three occasions on furlough i.e. from 10.1.2013 to 8.2.2013, 19.8.2013 to 18.9.2013 and 9.8.2014 to 7.9.2014. In addition to the fact that the petitioner was released on furlough on three occasions, in the recent past, the petitioner has also been released on parole on three occasions i.e. on 22.2.2012, 5.10.2013 and 17.9.2015. In view of the above, we find that the aforesaid

jdk 3 9a.cri.wp.4512.14.doc grievance of the petitioner has been made without any basis, hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Legal fees of appointed advocate be paid as per Rules.

[ SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ] kandarkar