Dyneshwar Arjun Bhagwat vs The State Of Maharashtra
2018 Latest Caselaw 1082 Bom

                                                                                  12. cri wp 5334-17.doc


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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5334 OF 2017


            Dyneshwar Arjun Bhagwat                                       .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
            Mr. Arfan Sait         APP for the State
                                                   ...................



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

DATE : JANUARY 29, 2018.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

7.7.2017 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said

application was rejected by order dated 10.11.2017. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 2





                                                                  12. cri wp 5334-17.doc




3.           If an application for parole is rejected,                remedy of

appeal is provided.                   It is seen that the petitioner has not

preferred an appeal and has directly preferred this writ

petition. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in

Thansingh Nathmal Vs. The Superintendent of Taxes,

Dhubri and others, reported in A.I.R. 1964 SC 1419, has

held that "when an alternate remedy is available, a writ

petition should not be entertained". In this view of the

matter, we are not inclined to interfere and the petitioner is

relegated to the remedy available to him of appeal. Rule is

discharged.

4. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who

is in Nasik Road Central Prison.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                         [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                               2 of 2