1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTER I.W. NO. 24824/2008 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.308 OF 2008 (Janrao Khushalrao Bhute vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and another) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 1, 2008 Heard Ms. Gaikee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Sonare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Letter dated 11.9.2008 sent by the petitioner/convict Janrao Bhute, who is on parole, is treated as an application for extension of parole. It is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner/convict Janrao Bhute is undergoing sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was released on parole by the competent Authority in view of direction issued by this Court vide order dated 23/7/2008 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 308/2008. The petitioner was granted parole on 22.8.2008 for a 2 period of fifteen days, which expired on 7.9.2008. Ms. Gaikee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that wife of the petitioner was suffering from serious ailment and, therefore, petitioner sent the letter for extension of parole, which is treated as a criminal application. It is prayed that period of parole may be extended by two weeks from today. Shri Sonare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents, has opposed this request and submitted that the petitioner has already over-stayed for a period of 22 days. Ms. Gaikee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner has requested for extension of parole well within time vide letter dated 11.9.2008 to the competent Authority, however, the competent Authority failed to decide the application of the petitioner and for this, petitioner should not be penalised. It is prayed that period for which the petitioner is alleged to have over-stayed should be treated as a period of parole. It is submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to surrender before the Jail Authorities on 6/10/2008. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. In the normal course, we would have issued direction to 3 the Police to arrest the petitioner and bring him back to the Jail since the period for which parole was granted was over. However, it appears that application for extension of period of parole was submitted by the petitioenr on 11/9/2008, but the same was not decided by the competent Authority till today and, therefore, petitioner continued to stay away from the Prison. In such peculiar circumstances, the period during which the petitioner has over-stayed should not be treated as a period of over-stay and should be treated as parole period. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Authorities of Central Prison, Amravati on 6/10/2008 till 5 p.m. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati is directed to send compliance report about surrender of petitioner, to this Court. It is made clear that if petitioenr fails to surrender till 5 p.m. on 6/10/2008 before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati, in that event, the period from 7/9/2008 till the date of surrender shall be treated as a period of over-stay and appropriate action according to law would be taken. This protection granted to the petitioner is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and will not be treated as a general principle laid down by this Court in the case of late surrender. 4 In the normal course, the convict, who is released on furlough/parole must surrender before the Jail Authorities on or before expiry of period of furlough/parole irrespective of the fact whether the application for extension of period of furlough/parole is pending for orders before the competent Authority. In the instant case, indulgence is shown by this Court because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to communicate this order to the petitioner as well as Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati forthwith. JUDGE JUDGE khj