Javed Rehman Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 677 Bom

                                                                                       6. cri wp 655-17.doc


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

                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 655 OF 2017


            Javed Rehman Shaikh                                              .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                         .. Respondent

                                                      ...................
            Appearances
            Ms. Rohini Dandekar                   Advocate (appointed) 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. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

26.11.2015 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said

application was rejected by order dated 1.2.2016. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The

said appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner and he

was granted parole for 30 days. Pursuant to the said order,

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

6. cri wp 655-17.doc

the petitioner was released on parole on 4.7.2016 for a

period of 30 days. On 13.7.2016, the petitioner preferred an

application for extension of parole by a further period of 30

days. The said application was rejected by order dated

12.8.2016, hence, this petition.

3. The order dated 12.8.2016 shows that the reason given

in the medical certificate relied upon by the petitioner is not

clear and certain. We have perused the medical certificate

relied upon by the petitioner. Though in the medical

certificate, it is stated that the mother of the petitioner

requires hysterectomy, no date for the operation has been

stated and it is stated that after blood pressure and diabetes

come under control, the operation will be scheduled.

4. The petitioner was earlier released on parole for a

period of 30 days, however, no operation was performed

within that time. Further, for the period during which the

extension of parole was sought, the scheduled date of the

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

6. cri wp 655-17.doc

operation was not given. Moreover, it is seen that the father

of the petitioner whom the petitioner has proposed as surety

is very much available to take care of his wife. In this view of

the matter, we are not inclined to interfere, hence, rule is

discharged.

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




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                       3 of 3