Narendra Lalmani Giri vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1827 Bom

                                                                                    17. cri wp 969-17.doc


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

                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 969 OF 2017


            Narendra Lalmani Giri                                          .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                .. Respondents

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. Farhana Shah Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedia    APP for the State
                                                    ...................



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

DATE : APRIL 18, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

4.8.2014 on the ground of illness of his wife. The application

was rejected by order dated 26.3.2015. Being aggrieved

thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was

dismissed by order dated 23.11.2016, hence, this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                     1 of 3





                                                                  17. cri wp 969-17.doc

3. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be

rejected on the ground that no medical papers were

produced to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that it

was necessary for his wife to undergo operation. It is an

admitted fact that no medical reports were annexed to the

application for parole to substantiate the claim of the

petitioner that it was necessary for his wife to undergo

operation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before

us the sonography report to show that the wife of the

petitioner has a fibroid which is 4.5 x 3.2 cms in size.

However, no such report was produced before the

Competent Authority, hence, we cannot find any fault with

the Competent Authority in rejecting the application of the

petitioner for parole.

5. However, looking to the Ultra Sonography Report of the

wife of the petitioner which shows that she has a fibroid

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

17. cri wp 969-17.doc

which is 4.5 x 3.2 cms in size and the case of the petitioner

that his wife is required to undergo hysterectomy, we set

aside the orders dated 26.3.2015 and 23.11.2016 and direct

the Competent Authority to consider the prayer of the

petitioner for parole afresh. We also direct the petitioner to

submit the medical papers pertaining to the wife of the

petitioner before the Competent Authority.

6. The application of the petitioner to be decided within

six weeks of submission of medical papers by the petitioner.

7. Rule is made absolute in view of the above terms.

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




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          3 of 3