Bombay High CourtWP/784/2015partly allowed

Gajanan Ganpat Zalte (In Jail) v. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati And Another

2015-11-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

3011cwp784.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 784 OF 2015 (Gajanan Ganpat Zalte vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati & Anr.) 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 & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

NOVEMBER 30, 2015.

Heard Mrs. Nisha Gajbhiye (Wasnik) (appointed), learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nandita Tripathi, learned APP for the respondents. Parole leave sought by the petitioner on the ground of illness of his wife was granted on 10.11.2014 for a period of one month and the order records satisfaction that her illness was serious.

As per Rule 25 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the petitioner applied within time for extension. He also furnished certificates issued by Doctor and sought extension of 30 days. That application has been rejected on 30.01.2015. The reasons given are there were no documents about treatment given to his wife by the Doctor and the documents did not reveal any serious ailment. After hearing respective counsel, we find that the impugned order itself mentions certificate issued by the competent Medical Officer dated 08.12.2014. Earlier similar certificate has been accepted and leave has been sanctioned. The finding that the ailment appears to be not serious, therefore, is unsustainable.

3011cwp784.15 In any case, denial has come after a period of extension i.e. on 30.01.2015. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was absconding or misused leave facility given to him. In the present facts, we grant extension of 30 days as prayed for. The order dated 30.01.2015 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is given extension of 30 days beyond 10.12.2014.

Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of.

The charges for the counsel appointed for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.1,500/-.

JUDGE JUDGE *GS.