Sunil Sadashiv Ghate vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7300 Bom

                                                                              10. CRI WP 3473-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3473 OF 2017


            Sunil Sadashiv Ghate                                         .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                              .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Daulat G. Khamkar Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. Arfan Sait        APP for the State
                                                  ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 19, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

26.8.2016 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said

application was rejected by order dated 21.12.2016. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The

appeal was dismissed by order dated 30.6.2017, hence, this

petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                   1 of 2





                                                       10. CRI WP 3473-17.doc

3. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be

rejected on the ground that the wife of the petitioner is

undergoing treatment on OPD basis. The medical certificate

shows that the wife of the petitioner is required to undergo

angiography. The order of rejection shows that the son of

the petitioner along with his wife are residing with the wife of

the petitioner and they are capable of taking care of the wife

of the petitioner if she requires to undergo angiography. It

may be stated that it is an admitted fact that at present the

wife of the petitioner is residing with the son of the petitioner

at Pune.

4. Looking to the medical certificate and the fact that the

son and the daughter-in-law of the petitioner are there in the

house to look after the wife of the petitioner, we are not

inclined to grant parole to the petitioner. Rule is discharged.

[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 2