Allowed

Bandu Ramu Phadvele v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Apr 2016WP/1062/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail matter, the High Court of Bombay allowed the petitioner an extension of time for parole compliance. The court set aside the rejection of the application on the grounds that the delay was caused by the Tahsildar's failure to send the surety report in time, for which the petitioner was not to be blamed.

What did the court decide?

Order of rejection of second extension application set aside; Petitioner released on parole for 30 days upon compliance.

Bandu Ramu Phadvele Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

jdk 1 7.crwp.1062.16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1062 OF 2016

Bandu Ramu Phadvele

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

.. Respondent

¶8

Mr. Sachin Chandan Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mr. A.S. Shitole A.P.P. for the State

¶9

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶10

DATED : APRIL 05, 2016

¶11

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:

¶12

1 Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶13

2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole. The said application came to be granted on 3.8.2015. The petitioner had to comply with the formalities in relation to his release on parole within a period of two months i.e. formalities had to be complied on or before 2.10.2015. The petitioner had given surety of his relative viz. Rama Litya Ravte on 10.9.2015 to the Tahsildar Vikramgarh. As the Tahsildar's report in

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

jdk 2 7.crwp.1062.16.doc

¶16

relation to the surety was not received, the petitioner again filed an application for extension of time limit of the parole leave order and also requested Tahsildar Vikramgarh to send the surety compliance at the earliest. The time limit granted to the petitioner was uptil 2.10.2015. Tahsildar sent the report of compliance of surety on 5.10.2015 i.e. after expiry of time limit of the parole leave order. As compliance of surety report was not received from Tahsildar Vikramgarh, the petitioner preferred an application for extension of time limit of parole leave order. However, this was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner.

¶17

3 It is seen that the application for parole of the petitioner was granted, however, the petitioner could not comply with the necessary formalities as the surety report was not received from Tahsildar Vikramgarh in time. Thus, no fault can be found with the petitioner for the same and it was on account of failure on the part of the Tahsildar Vikramgarh in sending compliance of surety report in time that the delay was caused. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of rejection of the

¶18

2 of 3

¶19

jdk 3 7.crwp.1062.16.doc

¶20

second extension of time limit of parole leave order of the petitioner. The petitioner be released on parole for a period of 30 days on complying with the usual terms and conditions as set out by the jail authorities.

¶21

4 Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶22

5 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in Nashik Road Central Prison.

¶23

[ SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]

¶24

kandarkar

¶25

3 of 3

Bandu Ramu Phadvele v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandu Ramu Phadvele v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ronald James Alvares Vs the Inspector General (Prison) and Anr.

Pradeep Oliver D'Mello Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jamil @ Jammu Ajij Salar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Vitthal Shirke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pappu Mallappa Pol (C-5210) Vs State of Maharashtra

Saudagar Babu Kamble Vs the Home Department (Prison)