Application for extension of parole dismissed as the relief sought was time-barred and adjudicated in a separate writ petition which was dismissed upholding the prison punishment.
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.
6. cri appw 428-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3761 OF 2017
Mehboob Sahebjade Pirjade
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Respondents
Appearances
| Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar | Advocate (appointed) for the Applicant |
|---|---|
| Mrs. G.P. Mulekar | APP for the State |
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : APRIL 4, 2018.
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :
extension of parole for a period of 68 days. The said
extension was sought to the parole leave granted to the
petitioner in the year 2009. Extension of parole is sought
from 1.9.2009 to 8.11.2009.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3
6. cri appw 428-17.doc
3761 of 2017. By order dated 12.10.2017 of this Court, Writ Petition No. 3761 of 2017 came to be allowed and extension of parole was granted to the petitioner for a period of 30 days i.e from 5.9.2015 to 4.10.2015. As the Writ Petition came to be allowed and extension of parole for the period of 30 days was granted to the petitioner, the present application for extension of parole from 1.9.2009 to 8.11.2009 could not have been preferred in Writ Petition No. 3761 of 2017 and a separate substantive Writ Petition ought to have been filed by the applicant / petitioner, hence, we are not inclined to entertain this application.
account of late surrender by 68 days i.e overstay from
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3
6. cri appw 428-17.doc
1.9.2009 to 8.11.2009. Being aggrieved by the cutting of
remission of 340 days on account of overstay for 68 days in the year 2009, the applicant preferred Cri. Writ Petition No. 722 of 2013 before this Court. By order dated 11.12.2013,
the said petition came to be dismissed which means that the prison punishment of cutting of remission of 340 days for overstay of 68 days was upheld. In this view of the matter, it
is not possible for us to consider extension of parole for the
very same period, hence, the application is rejected.
[ M.S. SONAK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3
Mehboob Sahebjade Pirjade
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
