Chandrakant Dhondu Bhoir vs The State Of Maharashtra

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 9594 Bom
Judgement Date : 13 December, 2017

Bombay High Court
Chandrakant Dhondu Bhoir vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 December, 2017
                                                                                    5. cri wp 4421-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4421 OF 2017


            Chandrakant Dhondu Bhoir                                       .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                       .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mr. Arfan Sait         APP for the State
                                                   ...................



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

DATE : DECEMBER 13, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application on 25.3.2014 for parole on the ground of illness of his mother. The said application was granted by order dated 24.11.2014. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was released on parole on 1.12.2014 for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred his first application for extension of parole for 30 jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:16:08 :::

5. cri wp 4421-17.doc days which was granted and parole period was extended till 30.1.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole for a further period of 30 days. The said application was preferred on 14.1.2015. However, the application came to be rejected by order dated 10.6.2015. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 7.8.2017, hence, this petition.

3. In order to support the application for extension of parole on the ground of illness of his mother, the petitioner relied on medical certificate dated 12.1.2015. The said certificate shows that the mother of the petitioner was operated successfully for renal calculi and now she is advised to take rest of about one month w.e.f. 12.1.2015. This certificate is issued by Dr. Ashok M. Parwani. The statement of Dr. Parwani has been recorded and he has stated that the petitioner had approached him and told him that his mother had undergone an operation and she requires rest, hence, jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:16:08 :::

5. cri wp 4421-17.doc the petitioner requested Dr. Parwani to give a certificate to that effect. Dr. Parwani inquired with the petitioner where his mother was operated upon and to show certificate to that effect. However, he did not produce any such certificate. The petitioner also did not bring the patient before the Doctor. Dr. Parwani then gave a certificate dated 12.1.2015 stating that the mother of the petitioner was operated successfully and she is advised to take rest for one month. It is to be noted that Dr. Parwani does not hold M.S., M.D. or M.B.B.S. degree but he only has the degree of L.C.E.H. (Liceutiate of the Court of Examiners in Homeopathy). Thus, there is no material to show that the mother of the petitioner was in fact actually operated upon. Moreover, the certificate issued by Dr. Parwani which has been relied upon by the petitioner to seek extension of parole cannot be relied upon to substantiate his claim that his mother was indeed operated upon and she required rest.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                       3 of 4




       ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:16:08 :::
                                                             5. cri wp 4421-17.doc




4. The conduct of the petitioner is also to be taken into account. During the period of parole, the petitioner was directed to attend Hill Line Police Station. He attended the police station from 2.12.2014 to 4.1.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner did not attend the police station till he surrendered to the prison which was on 1.3.2015.

5. Looking to the medical certificate and the other facts, we do not think that this is a fit case to extend the period of parole, hence, the prayer for extension of parole is rejected. Rule is discharged.




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




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         4 of 4




       ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:16:08 :::