Asgar Sharif Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6622 Bom

                                                                               1. CRI WP 3593-16.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                                
                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3593 OF 2016




                                                                        
            Asgar Sharif Khan                                            .. Petitioner

                                 Versus




                                                                       
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                              .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances




                                                            
            Mrs. Farhana Shah Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedia    APP for the Stateig
                                    ...................
                                             
                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 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 on the

ground of illness of his mother. The said application was

rejected by the Divisional Commissioner on 25.11.2016.

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an Appeal.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                   1 of 3



                                                                    1. CRI WP 3593-16.doc

The said Appeal was allowed by order dated 18.7.2014.

Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was released on

21.7.2014 for a period of 30 days. The petitioner had to

surrender on 20.8.2014. However, the petitioner preferred

an application for extension of parole from 21.8.2014 to

19.9.2014 and thereafter, extension of parole from

20.9.2014 to 19.10.2014. Both the applications were

rejected, hence, this petition.

4. The prayer of the petitioner is that extension of parole

be granted to him from 21.8.2014 to 19.9.2014 and

20.9.2014 to 19.10.2014 on the ground of illness of his

mother. We have perused the medical certificates annexed

to this petition. The first certificate is dated 25.8.2013. On

the basis of this certificate, it was stated that the mother of

the petitioner is a suspected case of appendicitis and she

was advised operation. On that basis, the petitioner was

released on parole. However, the medical certificate relied

on by the petitioner for seeking extension of parole only

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

1. CRI WP 3593-16.doc

shows that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from

hypertension and osteoarthritis. She has blood pressure and

increased joint pain with weakness and giddiness, inability to

walk. The medical certificate does not show that the illness

of the mother of the petitioner was serious. In addition, the

learned APP has produced the report of N.R.I. Police Station,

Navi Mumbai which shows that at least six relatives are

staying with the mother of the petitioner and they are

capable of taking care of the mother of the petitioner. They

are Ajmuddin Razak Khan (nephew), Hasina Nisar Khan

(sister), Nisar Ibrahim Khan (brother-in-law), Faizan Nisar

Khan (nephew), Farid Nisar Khan (nephew) and Faiz Nisar

Khan (nephew).

5. In view of above facts, we are not inclined to grant

extension of parole, hence, no interference is called for. Rule

is discharged.

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




    jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         3 of 3