Salim Hayatchand Nadaf vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 5534 Bom

                                                                                 19. cri wp 2524-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2524 OF 2017


            Salim Hayatchand Nadaf                                       .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                     .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate 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

the ground of illness of his mother. The said application

came to be rejected by order dated 24.8.2016. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The

said appeal was dismissed by order dated 6.3.2017, hence,

this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                   1 of 3





                                                                  19. cri wp 2524-17.doc

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

rejected by order dated 24.8.2016 only on the ground that if

he is released on parole, there would be danger to the life of

the complainant, witnesses and their families. However, in

the appellate order, it is rejected only on the ground that

though it is stated that the mother of the petitioner is

required to undergo hysterectomy operation, no tests or

treatment reports to substantiate this fact have been

produced. Thus, it is seen that the application is rejected on

entirely different ground and the appeal is dismissed on

entirely different ground. In view of the serious

discrepancies between the two orders, we set aside both the

orders.

4. Accordingly, both the orders are set aside. The

Authorities shall consider the application of the petitioner for

parole afresh after taking into consideration the medical

reports submitted by the petitioner.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                               2 of 3





                                                          19. cri wp 2524-17.doc

5. The petitioner is granted time of six weeks from the

date of communication of this order to furnish medical

reports. Once the medical reports are submitted, the

concerned Authorities to decide the application of the

petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

7. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who

is in Kolhapur Central Prison.

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




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                       3 of 3