Bombay High Court
Vijay Ramdulare Nirmal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
10-WP-3880-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3880 OF 2016
VIJAY RAMDULARE NIRMAL )
C/9980, Nashik Road Central Jail )
Nasik. )...PETITIONER
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT
Ms.Rohini Dandekar, Advocate Appointed for the Petitioner.
Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
A. M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : 5th DECEMBER 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
1 The petitioner has preferred an application for parole
on the ground of illness of his mother. The said application was
rejected by order dated 22nd March 2016. Being aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was
allowed by order dated 28th June 2016. Pursuant to the said
order, the petitioner was released on parole on 30 th June 2016 for
avk 1/3
10-WP-3880-2016.doc
a period of 30 days. The petitioner had to surrender on 29 th July
2016. The petitioner preferred an application for extension of
parole on 11th July 2016. Admittedly, the said application was
made within time. The said application was rejected on 19 th
August 2016. Hence, this petition. The prayer of the petitioner is
that parole be extended.
Admittedly, the application for extension of parole was
made within time. The application for extension of parole was
made on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is suffering
from hypertension, diabetes, Angina Pectoris and bilateral
osteoarthritis. She was advised angioplasty. The application of
the petitioner was rejected as the earlier medical certificate relied
upon for seeking parole was similar to the one, which was relied
upon for extension of parole. It was noticed that there was no
change in the medical status of the mother and no papers relating
to the test of treatment given to the mother of the petitioner was
produced as proof. It is seen that the genuineness of the medical
certificate is not doubted by the prosecution. In addition, what is
avk 2/3
10-WP-3880-2016.doc
most important is that the application of the petitioner was
rejected on 19th August 2016 and on the very next day, he
surrendered back to the prison. The petitioner may have been
under an impression that his application for extension of parole
would be favourably considered. Hence, he has remained out of
the prison. However, as soon as he was informed that his
application was rejected, he has surrendered back to the prison.
Looking to the above facts, we are of the opinion that the parole
period be extended by a period of 20 days.
3 Rule is made absolute in above terms.
4 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner, who
is in Nashik Road Central Jail.
(A. M. BADAR, J.) (V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
avk 3/3
