Bombay High Court
Ajay Ambadas Waghmare (In Jail) vs The Divisional Commissioner Amravati ... on 19 July, 2018
Author: M. G. Giratkar
Bench: P. N. Deshmukh, M. G. Giratkar
1 jg.cri.wp 1242.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1242 of 2017
Ajay Ambadas Waghmare,
Aged about Major,
R/o. Presently detained in
Central Prison, Amravati,
Dist. Amravati
Convict No. C-4173 .... Petitioner
// Versus //
(1) The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Tah. & Dist. Amravati
(2) The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Amravati,
Tah. & Dist. Amravati. .... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Abhinav A. Pannase, Advocate for the petitioner (appointed)
Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, APP for the State/respondents
CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 19/7/2018
JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.)
Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for parties, heard finally.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 by ::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2018 00:54:47 ::: 2 jg.cri.wp 1242.17.odt which his extension of parole leave came to be rejected. It is submitted that the petitioner was released on parole on 20-5-2016 for a period of 30 days. The petitioner has started treatment of his ill wife as per the advice of doctor and he applied for extension of parole leave on 15-6-2016. The respondent no. 1 extended parole of 30 days vide order dated 25-7-2016. He could not surrender after the enjoyment of 60 days parole leave, therefore, he applied for another extension on 29-7-2016. Respondent no. 1 has not passed any order on the application dated 29-7-2016. On 10-9-2016, Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati issued show cause notice for surrendering late by 30 days and asked the petitioner why punishment of remission cut of 1:3 i.e. 30x3=90 days should not be imposed on him. It is submitted that the impugned order is without taking into consideration his application for extension of parole leave dated 29-7-2016, therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order for cut in remission and directions be issued to grant extension of parole leave.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
4. It is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner has ::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2018 00:54:47 ::: 3 jg.cri.wp 1242.17.odt already availed 60 days parole leave on the ground of illness of his wife. As per circular dated 26-8-2016, the petitioner is entitled for parole leave for 45 days in a year, therefore, his application is rightly rejected.
5. From the submissions by the side of respondents, it is clear that the petitioner was released on parole leave initially for 30 days, again parole leave was extended by 30 days and, again, the petitioner applied for extension. As per the amended rule dated 26-8-2016, the petitioner is not entitled for parole leave of more than 45 days in a year, therefore, application of petitioner rightly came to be rejected. Hence, we do not find any merit in the petition and, therefore, dismiss the same.
6. The fees of the learned counsel appointed for petitioner is quantified at Rs. 1500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2018 00:54:47 :::