Ajit S/O Ramesh Satpute v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Inspector General Prison, Maharashtra And 3 Others

2025:BHC-NAG:264-DB 1 916.wp.1042.24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1042/2024 Ajit S/o. Ramesh Satpute Vs.

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. N. Bawangade, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms N. R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 09/01/2025.

.

By the impugned order dated 18.09.2024, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of parole came to be rejected on the ground of adverse police report and the petitioner having yet to complete period of 18 months from the date of his last release.

2.

The record depicts that the petitioner came to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for life imprisonment.

3.

The petitioner sought release on parole on the ground of ailment of his mother.

4.

Apart from the adverse police report, Clause (4) of Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 is relied on as the petitioner is yet to complete 18 months of period from his last release.

5.

As far as the aforesaid issue is concerned, the same is already addressed by the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal Vs.

2 916.wp.1042.24 Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and Anr. reported in 2019 (5) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) (F.B.)762.

6.

As far as the adverse police report is concerned, but for the general statement, there is no specific accusation to infer that the conduct of the petitioner will result in an offence being committed by him.

7.

The past history of the petitioner but for the offence in question is not that of involving any bodily offence.

8.

That being so, the order impugned is quashed and set aside.

9.

It is directed that the petitioner be admitted to parole on such reasonable terms and conditions as the authority may deem fit.

10.

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) RGurnule