Bombay High Court
Ramesh Krishna Bhoir Through His ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 September, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 10.crwp.2868.16.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2868 OF 2016
Ramesh Krishna Bhoir ]
C /5046 Presently lodged at ]
Kolhapur Central Prison, Kallamba ]
Kolhapur Through: His wife ]
Sow. Ranjana Ramesh Bhoir ]
R/o Koshane, Samarth Nagar, ]
Taluka Karjat, Dist. Raigad, ]
Maharashtra State ].. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ]..Respondent
....
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner
Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 06, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent,
matter is taken up for final hearing. Heard both sides.
2 The wife of convict Ramesh Bhoir has preferred this
petition praying that the convict may be granted parole on the
1 of 3
jdk 2 10.crwp.2868.16.j.doc
ground of her illness. The said application came to be rejected
by order dated 24.6.2016 by the Divisional Commissioner.
Being aggrieved thereby, this petition has been preferred.
3 It is contended that the application for parole was
rejected only on the ground that there would be danger to the
life of the complainant and witnesses. As far as this aspect is
concerned, it is stated that the convict was on bail for six years
and prior to this application, he was released on three
occasions on parole and on two occasions on furlough. During
any of these periods, there was no complaint from the
complainant or witnesses about any threat to them or any
assault etc. by the convict, hence, it is contended that this
ground is totally erroneous.
4 However, the legal position is that against the order
of rejection, the remedy of appeal is provided. The
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of
Thansingh Nathmal and others Vs. Superintendent of Taxes
Dubri; AIR 1964 SC 1419 has observed that if an alternate
remedy is available, a writ petition should not be entertained.
2 of 3
jdk 3 10.crwp.2868.16.j.doc
In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere and
the convict is relegated to the remedy of preferring an appeal.
However, if an appeal is preferred, the authorities to take into
consideration that during earlier period when the petitioner
was on bail for six years and on three occasions when he was
released on parole and on two occasions when he was released
on furlough, there was no threat by him to the complainant or
witnesses or any untoward incident has taken place.
5 As stated earlier, as there is remedy of appeal, the
convict is relegated to that remedy, we are not inclined to
interfere, hence, Rule is discharged.
6 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner
who is in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kallamba, Kolhapur.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
3 of 3
