In a criminal writ petition, the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, disposed of the petition refusing to interfere with an order rejecting the petitioner's application for extension of parole, noting no reason to intervene.
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 35-crwp1126.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1126 OF 2016
Lalif Khan s/o. Jabbar Khan,
Age – Major, Occ. Nil (in jail),
r/o. Nashik Road Central Jail,
Nashi, Dist. Nashik
..Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
through Home Ministry,
Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors.
..Respondents
Mr.R.F.Khandelwal,Advocateforpetitioner
(appointed)
Mr.D.R.Kale, APP for respondents
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2016
PER COURT :
The learned A.P.P. appearing for the
respondents tenders across the Bar an affidavit-
in-reply on behalf of the respondents. The same is
taken on record.
2.It appears that the petitioner's
application for parole for a period of thirty days
was allowed by the respondents/authorities and he
2 35-crwp1126.odt
was released on parole on 27.03.2015. Thereafter,
the petitioner applied for extension of the said
leave for further thirty days. By the impugned
order, the application of the petitioner for
extension of parole was turned down by the
respondents/authorities.
3.We have heard the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the respondents. Perused the
pleadings in the petition. We do not see any
reason to interfere in the impugned order passed
on 30.05.2016 thereby rejecting the application of
the petitioner for extension of the parole with
effect from 27.04.2015 onwards. In the
circumstances, it will be open for the petitioner
to apply afresh for parole, if desired.
4.Withtheseobservations,without
interfering in the impugned order, this Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
3 35-crwp1126.odt
5.Since Mr.Khandelwal, the learned Counsel
is appointed as an amicus curiae to prosecute the
cause of the petitioner, his fees be paid as per
the schedule of fees maintained by the High Court
Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
Lalif Khan
The State of Maharashtra
S.S. SHINDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court