The court dismissed a petition seeking parole for the petitioner to attend to his mother's illness. Rejecting the plea based on the petitioner's history of overstaying furlough and risk of absconding.
Parole plea rejected; petition dismissed; legal fees awarded to State's advocate.
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.
jdk 1 5.crwp.3206.16.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3206 OF 2016
Sandip alias Babu Bhausaheb Kate ] C/7232, ] Presently lodged in Nashik Road ] Central Prison, Nashik ].. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
]..Respondent
Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate appointed for Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Heard both sides. Rule. Rule is made returnable
forthwith. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing.
2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole dated 16.12.2015 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said application was rejected by order dated 22.3.2016 by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. Being aggrieved thereby,
jdk 2 5.crwp.3206.16.j.doc
the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 16.7.2016, hence, this petition.
3 The application of the petitioner for parole was rejected mainly on the ground that on 17.8.2010 when the petitioner was released on furlough for a period of 14 days, he did not report back in time. Ultimately, he had to be traced and he was arrested by the police and brought back to prison. He was brought back to the prison on 8.11.2012. Thus, there was overstay on the part of the petitioner of 786 days. In this view of the matter, the authorities apprehended that if the petitioner is released on parole, he will not report back to the prison in time and he will abscond. Looking at the past conduct of the petitioner, it cannot be said that this apprehension is without any basis. Looking to the above facts, we are not inclined to grant parole, hence, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
4 We quantify legal fees to be paid to the learned appointed advocate at Rs.2500/-.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether legal grounds exist to grant the petitioner parole due to his mother's illness.
Sandip alias Babu Bhausaheb Kate
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Mridula Bhartkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
