Petitioner challenging parole rejection due to lack of information regarding mother's medical needs. Court granted 60-day parole extension and set aside punishment for overstaying.
Prayer for extension of parole by 60 days allowed; prison punishment for overstay set aside.
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.
8b. cri wp 2653-15.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2653 OF 2015
Nitin Pradeep Khairnar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Appearances
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner Mrs. V.R. Bhonsale APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 9, 2016.
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
ground of illness of his mother. The said application came to
be granted and the petitioner was released on parole on
22.2.2014. After being released on parole, the petitioner on
10.3.2014 preferred an application for extension of parole for
30 days on the ground that his mother had to undergo
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3
8b. cri wp 2653-15.doc
hysterectomy surgery. The petitioner did not receive any information about his application for extension of parole. The petitioner then preferred another application on 19.4.2014 for extension of parole for another 30 days. As the petitioner was not informed about the decision on his applications for extension of parole, he surrendered back to prison on 24.5.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner by
communication dated 2.6.2015 was informed that his applications for extension of parole were rejected. Thus, prison punishment was imposed on the petitioner for overstay of 60 days. The petitioner is now seeking that the parole period be extended i.e his applications for extension of parole be granted.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3
8b. cri wp 2653-15.doc
investigation and surgery as early as possible. This certificate was before the authorities. It is not the case of the respondent that the certificate is not genuine. Looking to the certificate, the authorities ought to have granted the extension of parole. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner for extension of parole of 60 days. The prison punishment imposed on the
petitioner for overstay of parole by 60 days is also set aside.
[ SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant extension of parole to petitioner due to mother's medical emergency and set aside punishment for parole overstays.
Nitin Pradeep Khairnar
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Anuja PrabhuDESSAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
