3103cwp184.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.184 of 2011. Waman Dyandeo Kad ..vs.. The State of Mah. Through the Secretary, Home Deptt.Mantralaya and ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. Archana Nair Adv.(appointed) for the petitioner. Mr.T.A.Mirza, APP for the respondents. CORAM : MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : 31ST MARCH, 2011. Heard both the sides. 2. The petitioner was released on parole on 23/7/2010 for 30 days on the ground of repair of his house. Thereafter, he preferred application for extension of parole which came to be rejected on the ground of an adverse police report. The grievance of the petitioner is that the police constable who came to make an enquiry in relation to the application for extension of parole made a demand of Rs.500/- and as amount was not given, an adverse police report came to be sent by the constable. Hence, the petitioner has prayed that action be taken against the constable and the period that he had overstayed on parole be condoned. 3103cwp184.11.odt 2/3 3. The ground on which the parole was sought by the petitioner was repair of his house. However, it is noticed that the residential house does not stand in the name of the petitioner but it stands in the name of father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner is residing in the said house. When enquiry was made in relation to the application for extension of parole, it was noticed that no repairs at all were carried out. Accordingly, the report was sent by the police constable. On these grounds the first application for extension of parole came to be rejected. Thereafter the petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole, which also came to be rejected on the very same ground. The report was sent as per the factual situation found by the constable and on this report the application for extension of parole came to be rejected. 4. Enquiry shows that no such demand was made by the constable and in fact it was found that the ground given by the petitioner was a false one, as no repairs at all were carried out to the house. It is not even the case of the petitioner that any repairs were carried out. Moreover, it is noticed that on the parole period expiring the petitioner has not surrendered immediately to prison but, in fact, he surrendered on 22/10/2010. Thus, the petitioner has, in fact, overstayed the period of parole by 60 days and now he 3103cwp184.11.odt 3/3 has prayed that the said act of overstay may be viewed leniently and he has tried to put the blame on the police constable for his action of overstay. 5. It is noticed that time and again the prisoners make baseless allegations against the police and the jail authority and try to secure furlough or parole. We find that day by day there is an increase in such matters. The petitioner has clearly admitted that he has overstayed by 60 days. Now, he cannot claim benefit of his own wrong and seek that the action be taken against the Officer by making baseless allegations against him. Hence, no case is made out for interference. The petition is rejected. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is in open prison Morshi. JUDGE JUDGE chute