1 wp-1515-2011.doc srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1515 OF 2011 Santosh Ramchandra Haldankar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents Mr.N.N.Gavankar i/b. Mr.Arfan Sait for petitioner. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 13, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Gavankar with Mr.Arfan Sait, learned counsel for the petitioner. Dr.Shaikh, the learned APP appears for the State of Maharashtra. 2. It appears that the petitioner had submitted an application for parole 2 wp-1515-2011.doc leave on account of his sister’s medical treatment and she was suffering from cancer. He was informed that on the last occasion when he was released on parole leave, he surrendered late by 364 days and his total remissions came to be forfeited. He was permanently removed from remission system and was told that he would not be granted parole or furlough leave for five years. 3. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.566 of 2010 which came to be disposed off on 18/2/2010. This Court directed the Respondent No.3 to pass appropriate order releasing the petitioner on parole after imposing usual terms and conditions on him and if necessary condition of attendance to the police station. In para 4 of the said order dated 18th February 2011 this Court noted the undertaking of the petitioner in the following words: “The petitioner has stated in this petition that if he is released on parole leave, he shall not make any application for extension of parole leave and surrender to the prison on time.” 4. In obedience of the order passed by this Court on 18/2/2010, the 3 wp-1515-2011.doc Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division granted parole leave to the petitioner vide his order dated 22/2/2010 for a period of 30 days. In the said order the undertaking furnished before this Court and more particularly reproduced hereinabove was also noted down and it was made clear that after 23/3/2010 there will not be any extension granted to him in parole leave. The petitioner was released on parole leave. He submitted an application for extension of parole leave on 13/3/2010. The application was rejected by the Division Commissioner vide his order dated 22/3/2010 by relying upon the undertaking furnished by the petitioner before this Court. He challenged the said order in an appeal before the State Government which also came to be dismissed on 22/2/2011 and hence this petition. 5. Having regard to the track record of the petitioner and the punishments imposed on him as well as the order passed by this Court on 18/2/2010, we do not find any error in the impugned orders dated 22/3/2010 or 22/2/2011 rejecting the prayer for extension in parole leave. In any case extension in parole leave is not as a matter of right and parole leave itself is granted to meet the unexpected exigencies. The application of the petitioner was allowed by the competent authority solely on 4 wp-1515-2011.doc account of the order passed by this Court on 18/2/2010 and, therefore, the petitioner was bound by the undertaking noted down in the said order. Mr.Gavankar submitted that the circumstances were such that the petitioner had no alternative but to submit an application for extension. We are not impressed by this reason. 6. In the premises, the petition must fail and the same is hereby dismissed. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)