Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1579 (BOM)

Bhavarlal v. State of Maharashtra

2013-08-12

A.I.S.CHEEMA, NARESH H.PATIL

body2013
JUDGMENT NARESH H. PATIL, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner, a life convict, was released on parole leave on 7.8.2012. He applied for extension of parole leave for 30 days by communication dated 16.8.2012. The office of Divisional Commissioner called for remarks on the application submitted by the petitioner from Superintendent of Police, Udaipur. It seems that, the said communication was made in Marathi language. 3. In the original record, we find the police report sent by the office of Superintendent of Police, Udaipur in Hindi, received by the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad regarding his initial release on parole. 4. From the affidavit-in-reply filed today, it seems that, as the Police officers at Udaipur could not understand Marathi language, the report called for on extension of parole leave application was not forwarded. The matter was pending in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 5. We have perused the original file maintained by the Commissioner ate, Aurangabad. The file was put up before the Divisional Commissioner on 25.7.2013 with a note that instructions are received from the Public Prosecutor that the High Court had directed for passing order on the said date itself. According to the order, the file was taken up and it seems, order was passed sanctioning the application filed by the petitioner, in the month of July 2013. The order of the Divisional Commissioner is annexed at Exhibit R-1 to the affidavit-in-reply, which is dated 25.7.2013. 6. We observe that, the officer/staff who handles these files ought to have taken proper care to get the report from the office of Superintendent of Police, Udaipur by appropriate communication. During this period, the jail authorities initiated proceedings for punishing the petitioner. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued and the punishment was proposed. As the Divisional Commissioner has taken a decision, in the facts of the case, we are not inclined to issue any directions to the Divisional Commissioner. In view of the decision taken by the Divisional Commissioner, the jail authorities will have to take appropriate decision in respect of the proposed punishment. 7. This is a second petition which we have noticed today that in identical circumstances, the punishment was proposed already and thereafter the Commissioner of Police sanctioned the application for extension of parole leave after lapse of more than a year. 7. This is a second petition which we have noticed today that in identical circumstances, the punishment was proposed already and thereafter the Commissioner of Police sanctioned the application for extension of parole leave after lapse of more than a year. We direct the respondents to devise appropriate method and take necessary steps to avoid such situation. 8. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad shall call explanation from the concerned person, incharge of handling the file in this respect. 9. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 10. Rule made absolute in the above terms. 11. Professional fees of Mrs. Preeti Wankhede, Advocate, who was appointed as amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, be paid as per rules. Ordered accordingly.