1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR 1. Criminal Application (APPW) No. 57/2011 in Criminal W.P.No. 173/2011 (Sau. Kiran w/o Antariksh Ukey vs. State of Maharashtra, through Superintendent of Central Jail, Nagpur.) 2. Criminal Application (APPW) No. 62/2011 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 173/2011. (Sau. Kiran w/o Antariksh Ukey vs. State of Maharashtra, through Superintendent of Central Jail, Nagpur) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mrs. Joshi, learned APP for respondent- State. Miss T.Udesi, learned Adv. For applicant/ petitioner -Sau. Kiran Ukey. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & P.B.VARALE, JJ DATE : 03.05.2011 Heard the learned APP for the respondent State which has filed Criminal Application No. 57/2011 and for respondent State in Criminal Application No.62/2011 filed by Sau. Kiran w/o Antariksh Ukey who is present in person. She is applicant in Criminal Application No.62/2011. 2. Sau. Kiran w/o Antariksh Ukey has stated that she hails from a very poor background due to which 2` she is unable to engage an advocate, hence she be provided an advocate from legal aid panel in both these applications. In view of the request made by the Sau. Kiran Ukey, Advocate Miss T. Udeshi from the legal aid panel is appointed to represent her in both these matters. 3. Sau. Kiran was released on parole on 21.1.2010. At that time she was about 7 months pregnant. The said period of parole was extended till 21st April, 2010. Meanwhile, she delivered a female child on 20.3.2010. As she had just delivered a child it was not possible to her to report back to prison on 21st April, 2010 and there was over stay on her part of 146 days. The period of parole granted had expired, hence the petitioner preferred a Criminal Writ Petition before this court for extension of the said period of parole. As it was rejected, she surrendered back to prison on her own. Thereafter, as there was over stay of 146 days on her part, she preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 173/2011 through jail for extension of her period of parole or in the alternative for temporary bail. As parole cannot be extended beyond 90 days, this Court did not grant the said prayer of extension of parole. However, looking to the fact that the petitioner had a young daughter of about 3 years and another female child who was a few months old, this Court granted temporary bail of six months to the petitioner by order 3` dated 16.3.2011. Pursuant to the said order she was released on bail on 12.4.2011. 4. The State has moved Criminal Application No. 57/2011 stating therein that the petitioner was convicted under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judgment and order dated 19.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 417/2001. Criminal Appeal No. 74/2003 preferred by her came to be dismissed by this Court by order dated 30.11.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred SLP (Cri) No. 744/2008 before the Supreme Court challenging the said Judgment and order. The Supreme Court by order dated 10.12.2010 granted leave to appeal and the appeal has been admitted for final hearing. The appeal is registered as Appeal No. 237/2010. 5. It is stated by the learned APP that while Criminal W.P.No. 173/2011 was heard by this court, the above referred fact especially the fact that the S.L.P. is pending before the Supreme Court could not be brought to the notice of this court. In fact, at that time this fact was not known to the jail authorities, hence it could not be brought to the notice of the court. Subsequently, the jail authorities came to know about this fact, hence Application No. 57/2011 has been moved by the State, wherein, it is stated that as SLP is pending, this court 4` did not have jurisdiction to grant bail to the respondent, hence bail be cancelled. 6. Looking to the fact that the SLP is pending before the Supreme Court, this Court certainly did not have the jurisdiction to grant bail. Hence, the order dated 16.3.2011 whereby petitioner Sau. Kiran Ukey was granted temporary bail of six months, is set aside and the said bail is cancelled. Application No. 57/2011 is granted to aforesaid extent. 7. Sau. Kiran Ukey has preferred Application No.62/2011 for parole. She has stated that her husband is in Nagpur Central Prison. She has two children i.e. one older daughter who is about 4 years old and a younger daughter who is about one year old. There is no one in the family to look after the minor children. Moreover, the younger child Unnati requires medical treatment including immunization, hence, on this ground she has prayed for parole. 8. Looking to the above facts, which are in fact admitted, we are inclined to grant parole for a period of 30 days to the petitioner. Hence, the following order: a) The petitioner Sau. Kiran w/o Antariksh Ukey be released on parole for a period of 30 days from today. 5` b) When the petitioner was granted bail by order dated 16.3.2011 she had furnished surety. The very same surety be continued in this application for parole. c) In addition, the petitioner shall report to Ambazari Police Station once in a week during the period that she is on parole. 9. If the petitioner seeks extension of the said period of parole, she may prefer necessary application to the concerned authority. If such application is received by the concerned authorities in time, it shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. 10. Both the applications stand disposed of in above terms. 11. Fees payable to Miss T. Udeshi, advocate who has been appointed to represent petitioner in both matter is quantified at Rs. 750/- in each matter. The same be paid to her within three months. JUDGE JUDGE patle 6`