Sachin Vyankatrao Thosare (In ... vs The Divisional Commissioner ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6451 Bom

                                       1                                      jg.cri.wp 622.17.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 622 of 2017

Sachin Vyankatrao Thosare, 
C-8884, Central Prison, 
Nagpur.                                                                      .... Petitioner

      //  Versus //

(1) The Divisional Commissioner, 
      Nagpur Division, Old Secretariat  
      Nagpur. 

(2) The Superintendent of Prison, 
      Nagpur Central Jail, 
      Nagpur.                                                            .... Respondents

Shri Tarun Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner (appointed)
Shri A. M. Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents  
                                                         
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                 M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 22-08-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ

petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the

learned counsel for the parties.

By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the

order of the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur dated 19-4-2017 rejecting

.....2/-

2 jg.cri.wp 622.17.odt

the application of the petitioner for grant of parole leave for the

treatment of his mother.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal

of the impugned order as also the police vigilance report dated 7-4-2017,

it appears that a case is made out by the petitioner for grant of parole

leave. It appears from the police verification report that the relative of

the petitioner who is ready to furnish surety would be able to keep

control over the petitioner. It is further observed in the report that in

Police Station, Ramtek no offence is registered against the petitioner and

the medical certificate shows that the mother of the petitioner is being

treated in Dr. Permanand Nikhade Sub District Hospital, Ramtek. Since

the petitioner appears to be the only son, who could look after his mother

who is taking treatment in Dr. Permanand Nikhade Sub District Hospital,

Ramtek, it would be necessary to grant parole leave to the petitioner.

The observation in the impugned order that since the mother of the

petitioner is not seriously ill, the parole leave should be refused does not

appear to be correct.

In this view of the matter, by allowing the criminal writ

petition, we direct the respondents to release the petitioner on parole

leave within 7 days from the date on which the petitioner furnishes the

.....3/-

3 jg.cri.wp 622.17.odt

surety as required by the rules.

The professional fees of the learned counsel for the petitioner

are quantified at Rs. 1,500/-. Order accordingly.

                  JUDGE                                           JUDGE



wasnik




                                                                                        ...../-