Rajendra Dattatray Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 5531 Bom

                                                                                  23. cri wp 2645-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2645 OF 2017


            Rajendra Dattatray Patil                                      .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar   APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 3, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

5.8.2016. The said application came to be rejected by order

dated 26.5.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order

dated 12.6.2017, hence, this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 2





                                                                 23. cri wp 2645-17.doc

3. The petitioner was seeking parole on the ground of

illness of his father. The application of the petitioner for

parole came to be rejected on the ground that the father of

the petitioner is only suffering from diabetes and he has not

produced any papers to show that his father is suffering from

any serious medical problem, hence, the application of the

petitioner for parole came to be rejected.

4. In view of the fact that the illness of the father of the

petitioner is not serious, we cannot find any fault with the

Authorities in rejecting the application of the petitioner for

parole, hence, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is

discharged.

[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ]                   [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                              2 of 2