← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/166/2021dismissed

Sudarshan Sadashiv Vighne v. State Of Mah. Thr. Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail Amravati And 2 Others

2021-02-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote2 pages

12.wp 166-21.odt1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 166 OF 2021 PETITIONER :- Sudarshan @ Babu Sadashiv Vighne,C3697, Aged about 48 years, Occup.Nil (Presently in Central Prison Amravati) ...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1.

State of Maharashtra through Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Amravati.

2.

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.

3.

The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Reason, Nagpur.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.R.L.Kadu, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr.N.R.Patil APP for the State.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE & AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATE : 22.02.2021.

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.)

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who appears by waiving Kavita

12.wp 166-21.odt2/2 notice for the respondents.

3.

The petitioner's application for grant of Covid-19 parole in terms of the G.R. dated 08.05.2020 has been rejected on the ground that on the last occasion, the petitioner had surrendered before the jail authorities by a delay of 38 days. It is one of the conditions of the G.R. dated 08.05.2020 that on the last two occasions when the petitioner was released, the petitioner must not have reported back to the jail authorities with any delay. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had surrendered after a delay of about 38 days and that was the last time when he committed such misconduct. So, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the prohibitions contained in the G.R dated 08.05.2020 and as such nothing wrong could be noticed in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

JUDGE JUDGE Kavita