The court dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of parole, noting a vague medical certificate. The court declined interference but granted liberty to file a fresh application with proper medical evidence.
Liberty granted to the petitioner to submit an application for parole afresh supported by necessary medical certificate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.353 OF 2009
Shri Madhav Hasanna Pandalvar
.. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Shri C.V.Dharurkar, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Shri S.K.Kadam, APP for respondent-State
CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND
R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ
DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009
PER COURT :
2
ground that his wife was suffering from serious ailment which require surgical intervention i.e an operation called “Hysterectomy”. As per the procedure, report from the Police Officer, Nanded came to be obtained and thereafter the Divisional Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 6.3.2009 rejecting the application of the petitioner on two grounds, (1) that the presence of the petitioner at the time of operation was not essential as the father of the petitioner would attend to the ailing wife of the petitioner; and (2) On two previous occasions, the petitioner had surrendered late and, therefore, there was a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the authorities that the petitioner would not surrender if released on parole.
3
According to us the said certificate is extremely vague as the Medical Officer has only opined as “Ad TAH”. According to us, this certificate does not denote the seriousness of the ailment with which the wife of the petitioner is suffering nor does it denote the period of hospitalization and the nature of the surgery which is required to be performed on the wife of the petitioner. In the light of that therefore, we decline to interfere in the order passed by the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole. We, however, grant liberty to the petitioner to submit an application afresh supported by necessary medical certificate and direct the respondents that in the event such a certificate is produced and an application is tendered, the said application be decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner earlier.
directions to the respondents to decide the application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by the rejection of the earlier application of the petitioner.
4
( R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.)
(vvr/353.09criwp)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this court should interfere with the order rejecting the petitioner's application for parole on the ground of the wife's medical condition.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to liberty to file an application for parole afresh with proper medical certification.
Shri Madhav Hasanna Pandalvar
The State of Maharashtra
P.V. Hardas
R.K. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
