Sheikh Nisar Shaikh Dadamiya (In ... vs Divisional Commissioner And Othr
2021 Latest Caselaw 159 Bom

                                                                      judg CrWP 832.2018.odt
                                              1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 832/2018

 1.       Sheikh Nisar Shaikh Dadamiya
          Convict No. C-02, Aged years,
          Lodged in District Open Prison,
          Amravati.                                                   ..... PETITIONER

                                    // VERSUS //

 1.     Divisional Commissioner,
        Offc. Of the Divisional Commissioner,
        By Pass Road, Camp,
        Amravati- 444602.

 2.     The Superintendent,
        Amravati Central Prison.

 3.     Superintendent of Police,
        Nanded.                                                 .... RESPONDENT(S)

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Rohan Chhabra, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner
 Shri N.R. Patil, APP for the respondents/State
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               CORAM :            SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                                  AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 05/01/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

 2]                Heard finally by consent.


 3]                The discretion exercised by respondent no. 1 in granting




                                                              judg CrWP 832.2018.odt

parole for a period of 15 days on an application for extension of time

made by the petitioner is challenged on the ground that the wife of the

applicant/petitioner was seriously ill and parole ought to have been

granted for a period of 30 days. Reason of serious illness of the wife of

the applicant/petitioner has been considered by respondent no. 1 while

granting the application for extension of parole leave. Therefore, there is

due application of mind by the authority to the application. Nothing has

been pointed out as to why discretion ought to have been exercised in a

different manner. The petition is, therefore, without any merit,

accordingly dismissed.

 4]                Rule is discharged.


 5]                Legal remuneration of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand

five hundred only) be paid to the learned appointed Counsel for the

petitioner.

                           JUDGE                       JUDGE



 SMGate