1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.625 of 2010 [Shivsingh Raisingh Ingle Vs. DIG Prisons & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Petition received by Post. Mrs. Nandita Tripathi, APP for respondents. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 30th November, 2010. 1. This is a Letter-Petition. 2. Petitioner states that he was released on parole in past on four occasions, and had overstayed on all occasions due to poverty. His request for grant of parole has been rejected considering his previous conduct. He prays that:- [a] He may be given assistance of a lawyer for prosecuting the present petition. [b] Considering the poverty of his family, he may be granted parole. 3. In so far as the prayer for appointment of a lawyer from the panel is concerned, we 2 record with deep pains that we have noticed that lawyers appointed from the panel have been consuming months for filing a petition in the proper format and taking circulation thereof. Situation is as if, according to learned Advocates, the principle of Justice delayed is Justice denied only applies to the Courts, and it has no application to the lawyers on the panel. 4. We could not anticipate as to how much time would be lost, would we choose to appoint a lawyer from the panel. 5. We, therefore, chose not to waste time in appointing a lawyer, and decide to consider the matter upon reading the petition and at our own effort. 6. We have perused the petition. 7. Heard learned APP. 8. Petitioner s stay with his family in violation of tenure allowed in release order cannot be said to have really improved the condition of the family. Petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any special latitude barely on account of his poverty, particularly 3 when admittedly on each of four occasions, he has overstayed. 9. Moreover, petitioner may not be the only person similarly situated. Law cannot carve out a class of prisoners suffering poverty to be specially favoured on that ground. If case is made out on facts, and authority granting furlough is satisfied, the furlough may be extended as per rules, however, any other latitude cannot be granted on this ground. 10. Had the petitioner not dis-entitled himself by way of forfeiture etc., his concession of parole would have followed almost naturally. No special latitude, however, can be granted in terms of petitioner s prayer. 11. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the petitioner s plea that poverty constitutes justification for him to take law in his own hand. 12. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are not inclined to grant any indulgence and we do reject the Writ Petition. 13. Petitioner shall, however, be free to apply for grant of furlough which application be decided in accordance with law. 14. Copy of this order be forwarded to the 4 prisoner and the Superintendent of the Jail concerned shall cause its contents be explained to the petitioner. Judge Judge |Hedau|