Mahendra Purushottam Londhe (In ... vs Superintendent Of Police, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4335 Bom

        cwp346.16                              1




                                                                                
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                        
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.346 OF 2016.




                                                       
       PETITIONER:            Mahendra Purushottam Londhe,
                                 C-8074, Central Jail, Nagpur.




                                           
         
                                         : VERSUS :
                             
       RESPONDENTS: 1.   Superintendent of Police,
                        Central Jail, Nagpur.
                            
                                  2.  Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur.

       -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      


       Mr.G.L.Agrawal, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner.
       Mrs.Geeta Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
   



       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                                      CORAM:      B.R.GAVAI AND 





                                                             V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED: 1st AUGUST, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by

consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

2. Petitioner's application for grant of parole leave was

rejected by the competent authority on the ground that wife of the

petitioner was not suffering from any serious ailment and also

that, if petitioner is released, there is possibility of his disturbing

law and order.

3.

On perusal of the documents placed on record along

with the pursis filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we

do not see that petitioner's wife is suffering from any serious

ailment warranting the petitioner's presence along with her.

4. The Petition is, therefore, rejected. However, it is made

clear that if petitioner comes across with any document supporting

the genuineness of his claim regarding the serious ailment of his

wife, rejection of this petition shall not come in the way of filing of

application for parole leave, afresh.

5. Fees to be paid to the learned counsel appointed by the

Legal Aid Committee to represent the petitioner is quantified at

Rs.1500/-.

                      JUDGE                                  JUDGE




                                   
       chute
                             
                            
      
   












                                                                            
                                                    
                                                   
                                              CERTIFICATE




                                         

I certify that this order/judgment uploaded is true and correct copy of original signed

order/judgment.

Uploaded by : P.Z.Chute.

Uploaded on: 02/08/2016.