Dismissed

Amit Deepak Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2015WP/3931/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3931 of 2015, where the petitioner was denied parole extension due to his wife's illness, directed the authorities to decide the pending application within 15 days. The court found no error in the earlier rejection based on medical evidence but directed a timely disposal of the pendency.

What did the court decide?

The concerned authorities directed to decide the pending application for extension of parole within 15 days.

Amit Deepak Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

cri wp 3931-15.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3931 OF 2015

Amit Deepak Waghmare

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mr. Santosh S. Musale	Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A.S. Shitole	APP for the State

¶12

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

¶13

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶14

DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2015.

¶15

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶18

The petitioner was granted parole on the ground of

¶19

illness of his wife. He was released on parole on 25.8.2014 and the parole was granted for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for

¶20

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

¶21

cri wp 3931-15.doc

¶22

extension of parole. The said application came to be rejected on 17.4.2015. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be dismissed.

¶23

The reason for rejecting the application for extension of

¶24

parole was that the wife of the petitioner was stated to be suffering from intermittent uterine bleeding and the Doctor

¶25

had only advised rest and no further treatment. In this view of the matter, the application for extension of time came to be rejected.

¶26

5. The petitioner has also annexed the medical certificate

¶27

of his wife. The said certificate which is annexed as Exh. "I" states that she is suffering from intermittent uterine

¶28

bleeding. She is taking treatment but she needs further treatment. This certificate is dated 4.10.2014. Looking to the facts stated in the medical certificate, we find no error in

¶29

the order of the concerned authorities rejecting the application for extension of parole.

¶30

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

¶31

cri wp 3931-15.doc

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has preferred another application for extension of parole on 7.10.2014 and the said application has not been decided till date. In this view of the matter, the concerned authorities to

¶33

decide this application within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

¶34

Learned APP Shri. Shitole to communicate this order to

¶35

the concerned authorities.

¶36

In view of above, no further interference is called for.

¶37

Rule is discharged.

¶38

[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]

¶39

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3

Amit Deepak Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Deepak Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devidas @ Aaba Laxman Savale-Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Bhagwan Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Suryakant Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit Deepak Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balkrishna Laxman Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Mallappa Palnor Vs the State of Maharashtra