Subhash Hiralal Bhosale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 1451 Bom

                                                                                    13. cri wp 277-17.doc


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

                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 277 OF 2017


            Subhash Hiralal Bhosale                                        .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                .. Respondents

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. D.G. Khamkar                             Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar                            APP for the State
                                                    ...................



                              CORAM        : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                               M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 4, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

20.12.2014. Parole was sought on the ground of illness of

his son. The said application was rejected by order dated

7.5.2015. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred

an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated

30.4.2016, hence, this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                     1 of 3



                                                                 13. cri wp 277-17.doc

3. The appeal came to be dismissed on the ground that

after looking into all the certificates furnished by the

petitioner, it did not appear that the illness was serious in

nature.

4. The petitioner has relied on certificate dated 6.11.2014

issued by Dr. Arun Bhute of Dr. Bhute Nursing Home wherein

it is stated that the son of the petitioner requires heart

surgery. Learned APP brought to our notice a certificate

issued by Aditya Birla Hospital which shows that the son of

the petitioner was operated for heart problem in the said

hospital on 26.5.2009. However, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the heart surgery was not done

properly in Aditya Birla Hospital, hence, the son of the

petitioner requires further heart surgery.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a

certificate dated 6.1.2017 purportedly issued by Dr. Arun

Bhute of Dr. Bhute Nursing Home which shows that the son

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

13. cri wp 277-17.doc

of the petitioner requires heart surgery. However, the

learned APP has produced a statement of Dr. Arun Bhute

which was recorded by the Police of Hinjewadi Police Station

on 13.2.2017. In the said statement, Dr. Bhute has stated

that the son of the petitioner has not been admitted in his

hospital for any treatment since 2012. We have asked the

petitioner to produce any medical report or medical test

report to support his contention that the son of the petitioner

requires surgery, however, he has not been able to produce

any such report. In this view of the matter, we cannot find

any fault with the Authorities who have stated that the

medical certificate did not show that the illness was of a

serious nature. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere, rule

is discharged.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ]                   [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          3 of 3