PRITAM TAKARAM LALGUDE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) The petitioner had preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was granted by order dated 7.6.2016 and the petitioner was released on parole on 13.6.2016 for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for extension of parole on 28.6.2016 for a further period of 30 days. The said application was rejected, hence, this petition.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that after the said period of 30 days was over, the petitioner returned back to the prison on his own. Two reasons have been given for rejecting the application for the petitioner for extension of parole. The first reason is that if the parole period is extended, there would be danger to the life of the complainant and there is possibility of law and order problem. As far as this contention is concerned, it is seen that the authorities considered all factors while granting parole for a period of 30 days and thereafter the parole was granted. It is informed that during this period, the petitioner has not indulged in any criminal activities or any activities which would cause law and order problem. Thus, we find that there is no material to support the first ground of rejection on which the application for extension of parole was rejected.