:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 371 OF 2005 Manish Dattatray Patil ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.N.N. Gawankar, with Mr. Arfan A.E.A. Sait, for the Petitioner. Mr. B.H. Mehta, A.P.P., for the Respondents. ... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. 14th February 2005 P.C.: 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. As short question is involved, petition taken up forthwith for hearing by consent. 2. The limited grievance made in this petition is that although the appropriate authority extended the parole period of the :2: Petitioner till 13th January 2005 by order dated 4th January 2005, however, copy of that order has not been made available to the Petitioner so far. It is submitted that taking advantage of that position, the jail authorities are proceeding against the Petitioner for having overstayed earlier parole granted by the authority, as the Petitioner is stated to have surrendered in jail on 14th January 2005. If such order has been passed by the appropriate authority, extending the parole period till 13th January 2005, purportedly passed on 4th January 2005, copy of the same be made available to the Petitioner forthwith and since the Petitioner has surrendered within the specified time, the question of initiating any proceedings for overstay does not arise. The concerned authorities will examine these aspects and take appropriate remedial steps, if so advised, within one week from today. It is, however, made clear that if there is no extension of parole period as is contended by the Petitioner, the jail authorities may proceed to take action against the Petitioner in accordance with. Petition disposed of on the above terms. :3: (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)