Vijay Balasaheb Nanavare vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 7612 Bom

                                                                 (3)WPNo.43142016(2)

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                              
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4314 OF 2016




                                                      
    Vijay Babasaheb Nanavare                   ...   Petitioner
          V/s.




                                                     
    The State of Maharashtra           ... Respondent
                                  .....

Ms.Rohini M. Dandekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP for the Respondent/State.

....

ig CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI & A. M. BADAR JJ.

DATED : 22nd DECEMBER 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J) 1 Heard both sides.

2 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the

matter is heard finally.

3 The petitioner is seeking parole on the ground of

ailment of his father. The application seeking parole was

made on 06/01/2016. It was rejected by order dated

08/06/2016. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred

appeal which was dismissed by order dated 19/09/2016,

hence this petition.

    Gaikwad RD                                                                         1/3





                                                                (3)WPNo.43142016(2)

    4                  The application of the petitioner for parole came to




                                                                            

be rejected on the ground that father of the petitioner is being

treated on OPD basis and no medical reports relating to the

tests undergone by the father of the petitioner have been

produced and no date of surgery is given. The medical

certificate relied upon by the petitioner shows that the father

of the petitioner, who is 72 years old, is suffering from

Osteoarthritis and eye problem. The genuineness of this

medical certificate is not doubted by the prosecution. In fact,

the order of rejection also shows that father of the petitioner

is suffering from problem with his eyes. However, the

application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that

the surety is not competent to keep a check on the petitioner.

As far as this aspect is concerned, the jail nominal roll of the

petitioner, which is produced by the jail authority shows that

on three occasions, the petitioner was released on furlough

and he has reported back to the prison on his own. He was

released on furlough on 20/12/2012 and he reported back to

the prison one day late. Thereafter, on 20/10/2014 he was

released on furlough and he reported back to the prison in

time. Thereafter, he was released on furlough on 12/03/2016

Gaikwad RD 2/3

(3)WPNo.43142016(2)

and he reported back to the prison though one day late. The

petitioner was also released on furlough on 06/10/2015. He

reported back to the prison on his own though after a period

of three days. The petitioner was also released on parole on

two occasions and it is seen that he has reported back to the

prison on his own though after a delay of one day and three

days.

Looking to the fact that on six occasions, the

petitioner has been released on furlough and parole and he

has reported back to the prison on his own and sometimes

though there was delay in reporting back, it was only one or

maximum three days, on humanitarian ground, we are

inclined to grant parole to the petitioner.

6 The petitioner be released on parole on usual terms

and conditions as set out by the competent authority.

Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in above terms.

7 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner,

who is in Nashik Road Central Prison.

    (A. M. BADAR J.)                   (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI J.)

    Gaikwad RD                                                                      3/3