Shaikh Mohd. Shabbir Bhikan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 2214 Bom

                                                                                 21. wp 1660.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1660 OF 2017

                 Shaikh Mohd. Shabbir Bhikan Shaikh                  .. Petitioner
                      Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra                          .. Respondent

                 Ms.Rohini Dandekar, for the Petitioner.
                 Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP  for State.


                                               CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                                              M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

04th MAY, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.

V .K.TAHILRAMANI) :

. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for death

parole. The said application was preferred on 27/05/2016 to

the Superintendent of Nashik Road Central prison. As police

report was not received within a period of 10 days and his

application was not decided, the petitioner preferred an

application on 15/06/2016 to the Divisional Commissioner,

Nashik. Police report was received on 09/07/2016. As the

21. wp 1660.17.doc

police report was adverse, the said application was rejected by

the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik on 23/09/2016.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Appeal against the order of

rejection of his application for parole.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present

Petition is that though 3 months have elapsed from preferring

the Appeal, the said Appeal has not been decided. It is seen that

the petitioner preferred an application on 20/02/2017.

However, thereafter the Appeal of the petitioner was decided

and it was dismissed by order dated 21/03/2017.

4. The grievance of the petitioner in this Petition is only

that his Appeal was not decided though 3 months had elapsed.

As Appeal has been already decided, no further orders are

necessary. Rule is discharged.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)