Partly allowed

Parmeshwar Siddharth Wankhade (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra through Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and Another

Bombay HC8 Dec 2016WP/316/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition challenged an order rejecting the petitioner's extension of parole leave. The High Court found the order lacked necessary details and failed to consider relevant police no-objection reports, quashing it for failure to look into material facts.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.06.2015 quashed and set aside; fresh orders directed to be passed within four weeks.

Parmeshwar Siddharth Wankhade (in Jail) Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

Order

0812wp316.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 316/2016.

¶6

Parmeshwar Siddharth Wankhade (in Jail)

¶7

VERSUS-

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶11

DATE : DECEMBER 08, 2016.

¶12

Heard Mrs. Y.N. Thengre, learned

¶13

Counsel [appointed] for the petitioner and Shri J.Y. Ghurde, learned A.P.P. for respondents. Perused impugned orders dated 29.06.2015.

¶14

To attend to his ailing mother, petitioner was released on parole leave for a period of 30 days on 31.03.2015. He sought extension and moved an application for that purpose on 18.04.2015. The second application

¶15

for extension was moved by him on 23.05.2015.

Order

0812wp316.16

Both these applications have been rejected together on 29.06.2015.

¶20

It appears that the petitioner has reported back on 01.07.2015. Because of this rejection, he is stated to have reported late by 61 days.

¶21

We have perused reply as also the impugned order. Necessary details are lacking in the impugned order. Police authorities at Akola have on 29.05.2015, after verifying all facts, given their no objection for extending parole.

¶22

From records available with the learned A.P.P., it is seen that first extension sought for by

¶23

the petitioner was of 60 days. In impugned order it is mentioned that the said extension was only for a period of 30 days. The period for which second extension was sought is not apparent in the impugned order. Date on which order dated 29.06.2015 was communicated to the petitioner is also not on record. It appears that on 01.07.2015,

¶24

he has reported back voluntarily and he was not

¶25

required to be arrested.

Order

0812wp316.16

In this situation, as we find that the competent authority has not looked into the relevant material and order 29.06.2015 is not self explanatory, we quash and set it aside. We direct the authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, within next four weeks.

¶30

Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

¶31

Fees payable to the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner is quantified at Rs.1500/-.

¶32

JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

Rgd.

Parmeshwar Siddharth Wankhade (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra through Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmeshwar Siddharth Wankhade (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra through Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and Another

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

Aashish S/O Dattatraya Dalal Vs State of Maharashtra, Throukgh P.S.O., P.S. Buldhana

State of Maharashtra, through Shri G.M. Sakharkar, a.C.P., Crime Branch, Nagpur Vs Satish S/O Mahadeorao Uke

Randhir S/O Nihal Singh and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Inspector of Police, P.S. Ambazari, Nagpur and Another

Citizen Forum for Equality through President Mr. Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Vs the State of Maha. through Chief Secretary Mumbai and 16 Others

Dr. Avinash S/O Manohar Warjurkar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. Bhandara and Another

Nandlal Raoji Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Pusad (Rural), Yavatmal and Another