Ravi Kisunlal Dewangan v. Divisional Commissioner Nagpur

2025:BHC-NAG:635-DB 1 3wp63.2025..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 63 OF 2025 (rAVI Kisunlal Dewangan Vs. Divi. Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. S.B. Khobragade, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State. CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATED : 21-01-2025 Heard Ms. Khobragade, the learned Counsel for the petitoiner and Mr. Ghurde, the learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State. The petition seeks extension of parole leave by 15 days for the purpose of reconstruction of the house. The petitioner, who is a mason, states that he is constructing his own house which is incomplete on account of which extension is being sought. Parole or extension of parole could only be granted in terms of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Prison Rules, 1959. Rule 19(3)(C)(iii) which speaks about extension of parole read in conjunction with Rule 19(3)(A), does not permit extension of parole for the reason on the basis of which extension is sought, we are therefore, not inclined to accept the petition, the same is dismissed with costs. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) Belkhede