Santosh Mohan Rajput vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 9317 Bom

                                                                                1. CRI WP 3323-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3323 OF 2017


            Santosh Mohan Rajput                                          .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar      APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
                                              M.S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 5, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the

ground of illness of his wife. The said application was

rejected by order dated 31.1.2017. The said order of

rejection shows that on earlier occasion, when the petitioner

was released on furlough, he did not report back to the

prison in time and he was arrested by the police and brought

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 2

1. CRI WP 3323-17.doc

back to the prison. As there was overstay of 663 days on the

part of the petitioner, it was apprehended that if he was

released on parole, he will not report back to the prison.

Hence, the application for parole came to be rejected. As far

as the present petition is concerned, no medical certificate

has been annexed to the present petition to substantiate the

claim of the petitioner that the illness of his wife is serious

enough to release the petitioner on parole. In this view of

the matter, we are not inclined to grant parole to the

petitioner. Rule is discharged. However, if the petitioner

prefers a fresh application for parole or furlough, it should be

decided on its own merits.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                    [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         2 of 2