Nasir Abdul Kadar Keval (Nasir ... vs The State Of Maharashtra

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8780 Bom
Judgement Date : 16 November, 2017

Bombay High Court
Nasir Abdul Kadar Keval (Nasir ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                             904. WP 4178-17.doc

DDR

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 4178 OF 2017
       Nasir Abdul Kadar Keval (Nasir Dhakia)          ...Petitioner
                    V/s
       The State of Maharashtra                        ...Respondent.
                                     ...........

Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the petitioner. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. - State.

...........

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

                                  DATE               :      16th NOVEMBER, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.):-

Heard both sides. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 19/3/2016 on the ground of illness of his daughter. The said application was rejected by order dated 14/9/2016. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for parole on 24/10/2016 on the ground of illness of his daughter. The said application was rejected by order dated 20/3/2017. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 14/9/2016 and 20/3/2017, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:19:47 :::

904. WP 4178-17.doc

2. The Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rule, 1959 provide for appeal against an order of rejection of parole. The record of the petitioner shows that he has not preferred any appeal in relation to the orders dated 14/9/2016 and 20/3/2017. It is not possible for us to directly entertain a Writ Petition against the orders of rejection of application for parole and the petitioner has to be relegated to the remedy of preferring an appeal against the said orders. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere.

3. Rule is discharged.

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) ( SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI J.) 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:19:47 :::