Wednesday, 15, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Nasir Abdul Kadar Keval (Nasir ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8780 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8780 Bom
Judgement Date : 16 November, 2017

Bombay High Court
Nasir Abdul Kadar Keval (Nasir ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                             904. WP 4178-17.doc

DDR

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 4178 OF 2017
       Nasir Abdul Kadar Keval (Nasir Dhakia)          ...Petitioner
                    V/s
       The State of Maharashtra                        ...Respondent.
                                     ...........

Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the petitioner.

Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. - State.

...........

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

                                  DATE               :      16th NOVEMBER, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.):-

Heard both sides. The petitioner preferred an application

for parole on 19/3/2016 on the ground of illness of his daughter. The

said application was rejected by order dated 14/9/2016. Thereafter,

the petitioner preferred an application for parole on 24/10/2016 on

the ground of illness of his daughter. The said application was

rejected by order dated 20/3/2017. Being aggrieved by the orders

dated 14/9/2016 and 20/3/2017, the petitioner has preferred the

present petition.

904. WP 4178-17.doc

2. The Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rule, 1959

provide for appeal against an order of rejection of parole. The record

of the petitioner shows that he has not preferred any appeal in

relation to the orders dated 14/9/2016 and 20/3/2017. It is not

possible for us to directly entertain a Writ Petition against the orders

of rejection of application for parole and the petitioner has to be

relegated to the remedy of preferring an appeal against the said

orders. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere.

3. Rule is discharged.

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter