Petitioner, released on parole, overstayed due to authorities' silence on an extension application filed for his unwell wife. Bench rejects petition, holding no indulgence should be shown for procedural delays in parole extension decisions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
14 wp.1468.10
ndm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1468 OF 2010
Jaisingh Shankar Pardeshi. ... Petitioner Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and anr. ... Respondents
Mr. A.G.Toraskar, appointed advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for the State.
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : 28th September, 2010.
P.C.
1 This is yet another matter, which has been received through jail by way of letter petition with the grievance that after the Petitioner was released on parole leave, he had applied to the authority to extend the parole leave period as his wife was unwell. However, no decision on the said application was communicated to the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore, verily believed that he was entitled to overstay the parole leave period and on that basis did not report back to the jail within the specified time. He overstayed by 129 days and reported back to the jail.
2 We have been receiving similar letters in the past. By now, we have disposed of quite a few petitions amongst other Writ Petition
2
14 wp.1468.10
Nos. 2508 of 2010 decided on 1st September 2010 and also Writ Petition Nos. 2513 of 2010, 2511 of 2010, 1407 of 2010, 2061 of 2010 and 1949 of 2010.
3 We have taken consistent view that no indulgence can be shown in such a situation as the attempt is to take undue advantage of the situation because of the inability of the authorities to take a final decision on the extension application within the original furlough/ parole period due to procedural formalities. Notably, such representations are filed only after the convict is released on the basis of furlough leave or parole leave order. Thus, for the same reasons, as recorded in Writ Petition No. 2508 of 2010, we reject this petition.
4 Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the advocate appointed to espouse the cause of the Petitioner.
5 Copy of this order as well as order dated 1st September, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 2508 of 2010, be forwarded to the Petitioner who is in jail, forthwith.
Jaisingh Shankar Pardeshi
The State of Maharashtra
A.M. KHANWILKAR
P.D. KODE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
