Anil Ramdas Borse vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 4256 Bom

     jdk                                                1                                              1.cr.wp.3124.14.j.doc


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                                      
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3124 OF 2014




                                                                                              
    Anil Ramdas Borse                                                               .. Petitioner

                        Vs.




                                                                                             
    The State of Maharashtra                                                        .. Respondent


                                 ....
    Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner




                                                                         
    Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for State
                                 ....         
                                            CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
                                             
                                                    MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATED : JULY 28, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:

1 Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule is made

returnable forthwith.

2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

30.5.2013 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said

application was rejected by order dated 30.9.2013. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The

said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 9.6.2014.

The prayer of the petitioner is that he be released on parole.

                                                                                                        1   of  3





      jdk                                                2                                              1.cr.wp.3124.14.j.doc




                                                                                                                      
    3                   It is seen that the petitioner was released on furlough

    on 15.10.2013 for a period of 28 days.                                                        Thereafter he was




                                                                                              

released on furlough on 21.8.2015. During the period that the

petitioner was released on furlough on 15.10.2013, he could

very well have taken care of his mother. Moreover, it is seen

that the parole was sought in the year 2013 on the ground of

illness of the mother of the petitioner. Medical certificates

relied upon by the petitioner to support the contention that the

mother was ill, are of the year 2013. Today in the year 2016, it

would not be possible to grant parole on the basis of medical

certificates which are of the year 2013, hence, we are not

inclined to grant parole, however, if today, any ground exists

on which the petitioner can seek parole, the petitioner may

make a fresh application to the concerned authorities. If such

an application is preferred by the petitioner, the same be

decided expeditiously by the concerned authorities.

4 In view of the above facts, we are not inclined to

interfere, hence, writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

                                                                                                        2   of  3





              jdk                                                3                                              1.cr.wp.3124.14.j.doc

            5                   Office to communicate this order to the petitioner




                                                                                                                              
            who is in Nashik Road Central Prison.




                                                                                                      
            6                   Legal fees to be paid to appointed advocate Ms.

Rohini Dandekar, is quantified at Rs.2500/-.

[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]

kandarkar

3 of 3