Sachin Bhanudas Kotkar vs Principal Secretary, Home ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 673 Bom

                                                                                    2. cri wp 572-17.doc


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

                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 572 OF 2017


            Sachin Bhanudas Kotkar                                        .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The Principal Secretary,
            Home Department & Ors.                                        .. Respondents

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Ms. Sakshi Choughule Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. H.J. Dedia       APP for the State
                                    ...................


                              CORAM        : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                               REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 10, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent of the parties, rule is made returnable

forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he preferred an

application for parole on 28.10.2016 on the ground of illness

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 2

2. cri wp 572-17.doc

of his wife. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the

application for parole was preferred on 28.10.2016, the said

application has not been decided yet, hence, this petition.

4. Learned APP, on instructions, states that the application

of the petitioner for parole has been considered and it has

been rejected by order dated 8.3.2017. Copy of the said

order is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.

Now, the petitioner has a remedy of preferring appeal

against the said order of rejection. In case, the appeal is

preferred, the same to be considered expeditiously by the

concerned authorities.

5. In view of the above facts, the grievance of the

petitioner does not survive, hence, rule is discharged.

[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ]            [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                        2 of 2