Bombay High Court
Anil Ankush Gadekar vs The State Of Maharasthra on 21 December, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
5b. cri wp 4291-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4291 OF 2016
Anil Ankush Gadekar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 21, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner preferred an application for parole dated
26.8.2015 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said
application was granted by the Appellant Authority on
10.3.2016. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
5b. cri wp 4291-16.doc
released on parole on 16.3.2016 for a period of 30 days. The
first application for extension of parole preferred by the
petitioner came to be granted on 10.6.2016. In the
meantime, the petitioner preferred second application for
extension of parole on 26.4.2016. The said application was
rejected by order dated 19.9.2016. Initially, when the
petitioner surrendered on 19.9.2016, it was held that the
petitioner had overstayed for 64 days. As the order dated
10.6.2016 granting extension of parole by 30 days passed by
the Appellate Authority was received by the Jail Authorities
on 23.6.2016, it was later held that the petitioner had
overstayed for 34 days. Thus, the petitioner is seeking
second extension of parole which application he made on
26.4.2016.
4. Admittedly, the second application was made in time,
however, it was rejected as it was stated that during the
period the petitioner was on parole and in extended period of
parole, the wife of the petitioner ought to have been
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
5b. cri wp 4291-16.doc
operated upon and he could not seek extension of parole on
the same ground again i.e it was necessary to operate upon
his wife.
5. As far as the second application of parole is concerned,
the petitioner has relied on certificate dated 1.6.2016. The
certificate of Doctor dated 1.6.2016 shows that the wife of
the petitioner was suffering from abdominal pain with
bleeding and it was necessary to conduct hysterectomy
operation. however, she was unfit for operation as her
Hemoglobin was very low as the blood report of the wife of
the petitioner dated 1.6.2016 shows that Hemoglobin was
only 5.1 whereas the normal range is 11 to 18. This indeed
shows that Hemoglobin of the wife of the petitioner was very
low and in such case, it would not have been possible to
operate on her. Moreover, her E.S.R. count shows that it was
99 whereas the normal range of E.S.R. is 0 to 20. In view of
the blood report of the wife of the petitioner, it is clear that
the operation could not be conducted as the Hemoglobin was
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
5b. cri wp 4291-16.doc
very low which is also stated by the Doctor in his medical
certificate. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion
that on humanitarian ground, extension of parole ought to
have been granted by a period of 30 days i.e from 15.5.2016
to 14.6.2016. Accordingly, we grant extension of parole from
15.5.2016 to 14.6.2016. As far as 4 days of overstay is
concerned, it is open to the Authorities to take action in
accordance with law.
5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
6. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who
is in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
