Petitioner convicted and in prison sought parole. Court rejected the plea due to prior parole violation where petitioner absconded for nearly nine and a half years. Appeal dismissed; parole refused.
Application for parole rejected; petition dismissed and rule discharged.
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 15.crwp.3851.16.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3851 OF 2016
Babusha Karappa Jadhav ] B-38021, Nasik Road Central Prison
].. 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 : NOVEMBER 30, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Heard both sides.
2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 24.9.2015. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 13.1.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 12.7.2016, hence, this petition.
1 of 2
jdk 2 15.crwp.3851.16.j.doc 3 The main ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner for parole is that on 7.4.2005 the petitioner was released on parole, however, he did not report back to the prison in time. Ultimately, he had to be traced and arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. There was overstay on the part of the petitioner of 9 years 6 months and 22 days. The petitioner was brought by the police back to the prison on 10.10.2014. In view of this fact, it is apprehended that if the petitioner is released on parole, he will not report back in time and he will abscond. In view of the conduct of the petitioner, it cannot be said that this apprehension is without any basis, hence, we are not inclined to interfere. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to parole given his history of absconding and overstaying during a previous parole period.
Babusha Karappa Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
V.K.TAHILRAMANI
MRIDULA BHATKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
