Janardan Baban Bhopi vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8121 Bom

                                                                                  905. wp 2076.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2076  OF 2017

                 Janardan Baban Bhopi                                   .. Petitioner
                       Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra                             .. Respondent

                 Ms.Rohini Dandekar, for the Petitioner.
                 Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP  for State.


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

12th OCTOBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.

V .K.TAHILRAMANI , J.) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

24/10/2016 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application

was rejected by order dated 20/03/2017. Being aggrieved thereby

the petitioner preferred Appeal. The Appeal was dismissed by order

dated 13/06/2017. Hence this Petition.

3. It is seen that application of the petitioner for parole came to

be rejected on the ground that the Superintendent of Nashik Road

Central Prison has not recommended the release of the petitioner

905. wp 2076.17.doc

on parole. The Appellate order says that the Appeal of the petitioner

is pending before the higher Court, hence Appeal came to be rejected

by order dated 13/06/2017. Thus, it is seen that the order on which

the application of the petitioner for parole was rejected and the

Appellate order dated 13/06/2017 are on entirely different grounds.

They are not at all in consonance with the each other. In this view,

orders dated 20/03/2017 and 13/06/2017 are set aside. The

concerned Authority shall consider and decide the application of the

petitioner for parole afresh. The same to be done expeditiously. Rule

is made absolute in the above terms.

4. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is

in Nashik Road Central Prison.

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