Bombay High Court
Mehboob Sahebjade Pirjade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 12 October, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
14. wp 3761.17.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3761 OF 2017
Mehboob Sahebjade Pirjade .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents
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 the sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
the ground of illness of his son. The said application was
granted by order dated 15/06/2015. Pursuant thereto the
petitioner was released on parole on 06/07/2015 for a period of
30 days. On 21/07/2015, the petitioner preferred first
application for extension of parole for a period 30 days. The
said application was granted and parole period was extended
14. wp 3761.17.doc
from 06/08/2015 to 04/09/2015. Thereafter the petitioner
preferred 2nd application for extension of parole for a period of
30 days. The said application came to be rejected by order
dated 01/10/2015. Hence, this Petition.
3. 2nd application of the petitioner for extension of
parole for son's treatment came to be rejected on the ground
that though he was granted 1st extension of parole, however, he
has not submitted any papers relating to treatment undergone
by his son during the period that he was on parole. Hence, his
application for 2nd extension of parole was rejected.
4. The order dated 25/08/2015 whereby 1 st extension
of parole was granted from 06/08/2015 to 04/09/2015 shows
that son had to undergo surgery for Appendicitis. However, he
required blood transfusion and other treatment before he
underwent the said surgery. Hence, operation could not take
place. Thus, the ground of son's illness appears to be genuine.
14. wp 3761.17.doc
5. Learned APP drew our attention to the statement of
Dr.Mujawar who had examined son of the petitioner on
05/09/2013. She states that Dr.Mujawar has stated that he had
not operated son of the petitioner or admitted him in his
hospital. This statement shows that Dr.Mujawar examined the
son of the petitioner only on 05/09/2013 and thereafter he has
not examined son of the petitioner. However, the order granting
1st extension of the parole from 6/8/2015 to 4/9/2015 was
granted on the ground that the son 's surgery could not be
carried out because he needed blood transfusion and other
treatment before he underwent the said surgery. Thus, the
ground that son of the petitioner was required to be operated
was accepted by the authority while granting 1 st extension of
parole.
6. The record of the petitioner shows that on 9
occasions he was released on furlough and on all occasions he
reported back in time, except one occasion in the year 2013
when he was one day late. He was released on furlough on
14. wp 3761.17.doc
03/01/2006, 27/10/2007, 16/04/2009, 27/10/2011,
14/10/2012, 15/10/2013, 09/09/2014, 06/05/2016 &
18/03/2017. The conduct of the petitioner in prison is stated
to be good. As stated earlier except on one occasion, when he
was released on furlough on 15/10/2013, when he reported one
day late, on all other occasions he reported back to the prison on
his own on the due date. Looking to this fact and the conduct of
the petitioner in prison which is stated to be good, on
humanitarian ground, we are inclined to extend the period of
parole for a further period of 30 days i.e. from 05/09/2015 for a
period of 30 days. Prison punishment imposed if any, on
account of over stay, is set aside. Rule is made absolute in the
above terms.
7. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner
who is in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba , Kolhapur.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
