Bombay High CourtWP/338/2022dismissed

Darasingh @ Maruti S/O Vakilya Bhosale (Convict No. 6548) v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2022-03-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.K. Jadhav,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More2 pages

crwp338.22 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 943 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.338 OF 2022 DARASINGH @ MARUTI S/O VAKILYA BHOSALE (CONVICT NO. 6548)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .....

Advocate for Petitioner : Mrs. Gunjal Bharati B. APP for Respondent-State: Mr. S.J. Salgare .....

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.

DATED : 4th MARCH, 2022 PER COURT:- 1.

Heard. We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 2.

By order dated 18.2.2022, we have modified the order of the respondent authorities granting an emergency parole for two days under the police escort. We have considered the financial poor position of the petitioner and also considered the expenses of the police escort approximately Rs.70,000/- per day. We have also observed that it is not possible for the petitioner to bear the said heavy expenses of the said escort. Thus, we have modified the order to the extent and effect that the petitioner be released on emergency parole, instead of police escort, with a condition to attend Bidkin police station daily between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. for 5 (five) days excluding the day of his release and also excluding the day of his return back, on usual conditions.

crwp338.22 -23.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has now come with one printed pamphlet, wherein it is stated that on 12.3.2022 there is death anniversary of his son. The son of the petitioner died on 20.12.2021 and there cannot be any death anniversary within a short period of three months. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince us that in Pardhi community the death anniversary is within certain months after the death, however, we are not convinced for the same. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner came to be convicted for total 23 years of imprisonment on various counts to be run consecutively and he has undergone the imprisonment of 22 years including remissions. However, this cannot be a ground to grant extension as sought till 12.3.2022 i.e. till the death anniversary of his son to be performed on 12.3.2022. We find no case to grant extension. There is no substance in this writ petition. Writ petition is hereby dismissed.

(SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.) rlj/