Shamrao Maruti Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 7478 Bom

                                                                                  5a. cri wp 2477-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2477 OF 2017


            Shamrao Maruti Patil                                          .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar   APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              A.M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he be granted

temporary bail for two months on account of illness of his

mother. It is stated that his mother requires heart surgery.

3. By Judgment & Order dated 20.7.2010 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 22 of

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 2

5a. cri wp 2477-17.doc

2008, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under

Section 302 of IPC. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before this Court. By Judgment & Order

dated 30.7.2014, the said appeal has been dismissed. In this

view of the matter, this Court is now functus officio and thus,

at this stage, it is not possible for us to consider the prayer

of the petitioner for temporary bail. In case, the mother of

the petitioner is ill, the appropriate course for the petitioner

would be to prefer an application for parole. Thus, we are

not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.

4. If the petitioner prefers an application for parole, the

same to be decided by the concerned Authorities within six

weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

5. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who

is lodged in Kolhapur Central Prison, Kalamba.

     [ A.M. BADAR, J.]                [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          2 of 2