Santosh Mohan Rajput vs The State Of Maharashtra

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 9317 Bom
Judgement Date : 5 December, 2017

Bombay High Court
Santosh Mohan Rajput vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                                1. CRI WP 3323-17.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3323 OF 2017


            Santosh Mohan Rajput                                          .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar      APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
                                              M.S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 5, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was rejected by order dated 31.1.2017. The said order of rejection shows that on earlier occasion, when the petitioner was released on furlough, he did not report back to the prison in time and he was arrested by the police and brought jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:20:01 :::

1. CRI WP 3323-17.doc back to the prison. As there was overstay of 663 days on the part of the petitioner, it was apprehended that if he was released on parole, he will not report back to the prison. Hence, the application for parole came to be rejected. As far as the present petition is concerned, no medical certificate has been annexed to the present petition to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that the illness of his wife is serious enough to release the petitioner on parole. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant parole to the petitioner. Rule is discharged. However, if the petitioner prefers a fresh application for parole or furlough, it should be decided on its own merits.




[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                    [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 2




       ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:20:01 :::