Dismissed

Rama Balu Mase v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Mar 2017WP/892/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proceeding under Criminal Writ Petition No. 892/2017, the Bombay High Court observed an inordinate delay in deciding the petitioner's parole application. The court noted the delay stemmed from a request for reconsideration and clerical negligence, which was explained by the Divisional Commissioner. The court found the explanation satisfactory and declined to interfere, advising the petitioner to f

What the court decided

AI extract

Rama Balu Mase Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

8 cri wp 892-17.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 892 OF 2017

¶5

Rama Balu Mhase .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Appearances

¶10

Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶12

M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶13

DATE : MARCH 29, 2017.

¶14

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

¶17

11.1.2016. The grievance of the petitioner is that till the

¶18

date of filing of his petition i.e 23.1.2017, his application for

¶19

parole was not decided, hence, his prayer is that his application be decided expeditiously and action be taken against the concerned Divisional Commissioner i.e Divisional

¶20

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5

¶21

8 cri wp 892-17.doc

¶22

Commissioner (Nasik) for not deciding his application for parole expeditiously.

¶23

Learned APP stated that the application of the petitioner for parole was considered and rejected by order dated 10.3.2017. However, we noticed that there was an inordinate delay in deciding the application of the petitioner

¶24

for parole, hence, we had called upon the concerned Divisional Commissioner i.e Divisional Commissioner (Nasik) to file a detailed affidavit explaining the delay caused in deciding the application of the petitioner for parole.

¶25

Pursuant to the said direction, Shri. Eknath R. Dawale, Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik has filed detailed affidavit explaining the delay. It is stated therein that the petitioner had applied for parole leave on 28.12.2015. Thereafter, the application was sent to the District Superintendent of Police, Palghar District for the report. The report was submitted on 21.3.2016. In the said

¶26

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5

¶27

8 cri wp 892-17.doc

¶28

report, it was specifically stated that the parole should not be granted in view of the statement given by the witnesses in the original criminal matter in which the petitioner is undergoing sentence. It is further stated in the affidavit that however, the petitioner did not agree with the police report and hence, he requested the Superintendent, Nasik Road Central Prison by his second application dated 18.4.2016

¶29

that the Police Authorities to reconsider the case. The Superintendent, Nasik Road Central Prison requested the District Superintendent of Police, Palghar for reconsideration of their report submitted on 21.3.2016. The District Superintendent of Police, Palghar by letter dated 13.8.2016 reiterated their earlier report and requested not to grant parole to the petitioner. This was stated in their communication dated 7.9.2016. However, after receiving the police report on 7.9.2016, the concerned Clerk and Naib Tahasildar failed to submit the matter for decision to the Divisional Commissioner, hence, there was delay in deciding

¶30

the application of the petitioner for parole. It is stated that

¶31

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

¶32

8 cri wp 892-17.doc

¶33

show-cause-notice has been issued to the concerned Clerk

¶34

and Naib Tahasildar.

¶35

Thus, it is seen that mainly the delay occurred as the petitioner did not agree with the earlier police report dated 21.3.2016 and he asked for reconsideration of the same. This was the main reason for delay in considering the application of the petitioner for parole. The second period of delay was caused on account of the clerk and Naib Tahasildar failing to submit the matter for decision to the Divisional Commissioner for which show-cause-notice has been issued to him. Thus, in view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the delay on the part of the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik has been explained.

¶36

As stated earlier, the application of the petitioner for parole has been rejected by order dated 10.3.2017. Against the order of rejection of the application for parole, the

¶37

petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal before the State

¶38

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

¶39

8 cri wp 892-17.doc

¶40

Government. Hence, it would be open to the petitioner to

¶41

prefer an appeal to the State Government. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.

¶42

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶43

5 of 5

¶44

jfoanz vkacsjdj

Rama Balu Mase v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rama Balu Mase v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh @ Bandya Raghunath Sawant

Suresh Maruti Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nana Uddhav Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dada Alias Pravin Satish Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Arun Kumar Shrivastava Vs Union of India, through the Defence Secretary and Ors.

Shri Milind Rampratap Hiwale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.