Bombay High Court
Manik Ananta Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 5 May, 2017
Author: V.K. Tahilramani
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani, M.S. Karnik
5. cri wp 1503-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1503 OF 2017
Manik Ananta Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Mr. N.N. Gawankar i/by
Mr. Manas N. Gawankar Advocte for the Petitioner
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : MAY 5, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
3. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:09 :::
5. cri wp 1503-17.doc rejected by order dated 16.11.2016. Being aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 8.3.2017, hence, this petition.
4. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected on the ground that in view of the Notification dated 26.8.2016, the persons who are convicted under TADA Act, cannot be released on parole. It is noticed that in the petition in paragraph 4, it is specifically stated that that the petitioner applied for parole leave on 10.8.2016. Thus, this notification would not apply retrospectively.
5. Learned APP submitted that in fact on 10.8.2016, the petitioner preferred an application that he may be granted permission to be released on parole and thereafter, he preferred his application for parole on 26.8.2016, hence, on 26.8.2016, in view of the notification, he cannot be released on parole as he has been convicted under TADA.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:09 :::
5. cri wp 1503-17.doc
6. We have perused the jail record. We found therein the application of the petitioner dated 10.8.2016 wherein he has stated that his wife is ill, hence he may be granted permission to go on parole. We find that this itself constitutes the application. Moreover, medical certificate dated 8.8.2016 is annexed to support the claim that his wife has some medical problems i.e infected ovaries for which she has been advised operation.
7. Learned APP submitted that the application is dated 26.8.2016. To support this contention, she relied on communication dated 26.8.2016 which is addressed by the Superintendent of Yerwada Central Prison to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. On perusal of the said document, we find that by the said document, police report relating to the petitioner has been called. On the very same document, we find the signature of the petitioner which is dated 12.8.2016. Looking to the record produced before us, we find it is difficult to hold that the petitioner preferred an application jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:09 :::
5. cri wp 1503-17.doc on 26.8.2016. In fact, the papers show that the application is dated 10.8.2016. In such case, notification dated 26.8.2016 would not apply to the petitioner.
8. The jail record of the petitioner shows that he was released on parole from the year 2001 to the year 2015 and on all the occasions, except one occasion, he has reported back to the prison in time. It is seen that on 26.5.2011 when he was released on parole, he reported back 29 days late to the prison, however, it is noticed that he has surrendered on his own to the prison. Thereafter, on three occasions, he has been released on parole i.e 3.10.2012, 10.1.2014 and 5.6.2015 and he has been reported back to the prison in time. It is further seen that since the year 2010 to 2016, the petitioner has been released on furlough seven times and except one occasion i.e on 30.8.2013, he has reported back in time. When he was released on 30.8.2013, he reported back to the prison on his own though one day late. Thereafter, it is seen that the petitioner was released on jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:09 :::
5. cri wp 1503-17.doc furlough on 22.10.2014 and 4.4.2016 and he reported back to the prison in time.
9. Looking to all the above facts, we are inclined to grant parole to the petitioner. The petitioner to be released on parole for a period of 30 days as per the terms and conditions imposed by the competent authority.
10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:09 :::