ARVINDKUMAR BHAIYALAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 1.6.2016 on the ground of illness of his father. The said application was granted by the Competent Authority by order dated 13.4.2017, however, as the petitioner had been released on furlough on 23.2017, on 13.4.2017 when the order granting parole was passed, the petitioner was outside the prison on furlough leave. Hence, when the petitioner was brought back to the prison on 6.5.2017, the order dated 13.4.2017 was communicated to the petitioner.

(3.) In the order dated 14.2017, the petitioner was asked to furnish two sureties; one was the original surety, Mr. Bhupendra Mishra proposed by the petitioner who was the cousin brother of the petitioner. Further the petitioner had to deposit Rs. 15,000/- towards security deposit. In addition, the petitioner was asked to furnish one more surety who was a Central or State Government employee as envisaged under Clause 7(i) of Notification dated 26.8.2016. As the petitioner could not furnish second surety who was a Central or State Government employee, he preferred an application for extension of time and also preferred an application stating that he is willing to furnish surety who falls in Category 7(ii) of the Notification dated 26.8.2016. Clause 7(ii) states that the surety should be elected local representative. The petitioner has stated in his application dated 12.6.2017 that he is willing to furnish surety of local elected representative i.e. Sarpanch of his village.