1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.51 OF 2011. SOMESHWAR DAGOJI RAUT. VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. By post. Mr. T. A. Mirza, APP for respondents. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : 21st JANUARY 2011. 1. This letter petition contains two grievances namely :- [i] That the petitioner's request for extension of parole was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, with undue delay and by calling fresh report without any justification etc. [ii] When the petitioner went to attend the police station, he was assaulted, abused and insulted etc., and was arrested for sending to jail. 2. The foundation of petitioner's first grievance is that earlier the practice in vogue in 2 the office of Divisional Commissioner as regards deciding application for extension of parole was to consider and decide the application for extension of parole without further investigation or enquiry and only on the basis of record already available. However, the new Divisional Commissioner has started calling fresh report and according to the petitioner, it is a device to harass the prisoners. 3. The body of application also does not disclose as to what were the reason which has led the petitioner to over stay the parole in anticipation of extension. 4. The prisoner was in fact, suppose to report back to the jail if extension is granted avail it again. 5. The petitioner is not entitled to say that in anticipation of grant of extension he would remain at his place by taking law in his hand. 6 The only point is whether such verification should be unduly delayed and we answer, that it ought not. 3 7. We do not subscribe to the views expressed by the petitioner that the Divisional Commissioner is not entitled to call for fresh report. We are satisfied that the Divisional Commissioner has power to satisfy himself as to the grounds on which the extension of parole is sought. 8. In so far as the second grievance is concerned, the averments regarding ill-treatment do not contain adequate description of the event and persons involved. The allegation does not inspire confidence. We are not driven to believe that the petitioner was really manhandled and to such extent and that it would warrant cognizance. 9. We, therefore, dismiss the petition. 10. Steno copy of this order be supplied to the learned APP for communicating it to the prisoner through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagpur. Judge Judge |muley| 4