A brief order where the High Court reserved liberty to apply afresh for parole extension. The writ petition was disposed of without substantive adjudication.
No relief granted; liberty to apply afresh for parole extension reserved.
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.
2103wp60.14
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.60 OF 2014
(Dilip @ Jaipal Bagade vs. The Divisional Commissioner and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Smt. S.P, Kulkarni, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner.
Shri V.A. Thakare, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 21, 2014
The present criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by rejection of his application for extension of parole.
If circumstances so exist and the relevant Rules so permit, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply afresh for grant of parole.
With the aforesaid observations, the criminal writ petition is disposed of.
The fee payable to the learned Counsel
2103wp60.14
2/2
appointed for the petitioner is quantified as rupees one thousand five hundred.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
Dilip @ Jaipal Bagade
The Divisional Commissioner
another
B.R. GAVAI
C.V. BHADANG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
