← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/625/2016rejected

Prakash S/O Malku Yedme (In Jail) v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Superintendent Of Central Prison, Nagpur And Another

2016-12-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Kum. Justice Indira Jain3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION Nos. 625 & 739 OF 2016. Prakash Malku Yedme (In Jail) -VERSUSThe State of Maharashtra and another.

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATE : DECEMBER 08, 2016.

Heard Ms. S.V. Salwankar, learned counsel [appointed] and Shri A.Y. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N. Tripathi, learned A.P.P. for respondents, in two matters.

2.

In Criminal Writ Petition No.

625/2016, filed on 05.08.2016 challenge is to rejection of prayer to release the petitioner on furlough. Order impugned therein is dated 29.02.2016.

3.

In Criminal Writ Petition No. 739/2016

filed on 20.09.2016, challenge is to order dated 14.07.2016, rejecting parole leave.

4.

Parole leave is sought for treating wife suffering from Arthritis. Release is opposed by the Up-Sarpanch and Police Patil of village. In order rejecting parole, it is mentioned that when he was released earlier, he was absconding, he was required to be arrested and brought back. For this Crime No. 3038/2015 under Section 224 of Indian Penal Code was registered, he was tried and competent Court has on 30.11.2015 inflicted punishment of 6 months imprisonment on him.

Reply in the matter shows that he reported late by 21 days.

5.

In impugned order in Criminal Writ Petition No.625/2016, that punishment of 6 months also finds mention. In addition, it is stated that earlier he was released on furlough leave on 04.01.2012 and was required to be arrested and brought back on 20.12.2013. Thus, there was overstay of 701 days.

2.

In this situation, after hearing

respective counsel, we do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, both Criminal Writ Petitions are rejected.

3.

Fee payable to the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.625/2016 is quantified at Rs. 1500/-. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.