Dismissed

Bharat Mulji Parmar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2016WP/1303/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his second extension of parole application granted on grounds of his wife's illness. The High Court, after reviewing medical evidence and the fact that the wife resided at her maternal home with family support, held the rejection was correct and discharged the rule.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged. Extension of parole application rejected.

Bharat Mulji Parmar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

9. cri wp 130315.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1303 OF 2015

Bharat Mulji Parmar

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mr. SandeepKumar Singh	Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal	APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶13

MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : JULY 13, 2016.

¶14

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

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶17

The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the

¶18

ground of illness of his wife. The said application came to be

¶19

granted by order dated 27.11.2013. Pursuant to the said

¶20

order, the petitioner was released on parole on 8.1.2014 for

¶21

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

¶22

9. cri wp 130315.doc

¶23

a period of 30 days. The petitioner had to surrender on 8.2.2014. On 21.1.2014, the petitioner preferred an

¶24

application for extension of parole for a period of 30 days on the ground of illness of his wife. Thereafter, on 25.2.2014,

¶25

the petitioner preferred another application for extension of parole of 30 days. The first application for extension of parole was granted, however, the second application for extension of parole was rejected. The petitioner is now seeking that extension of parole of 30 days be granted i.e from 9.3.2014 to 7.4.2014.

¶26

The order of rejection of second extension of parole

¶27

which is dated 23.5.2014 shows that the wife of the petitioner was taking treatment on O.P.D. basis. Moreover,

¶28

the wife of the petitioner was residing in her maternal home, hence, the second application for extension of parole came to be rejected. Looking to the medical evidence and the fact

¶29

that the wife of the petitioner was residing in her maternal

¶30

home where there were other family members to take care

¶31

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

¶32

9. cri wp 130315.doc

¶33

of her, we are of the opinion that the application for extension of parole has been rightly rejected. No case is

¶34

made out for interference, hence, Rule is discharged.

¶35

[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶36

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3

Bharat Mulji Parmar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Mulji Parmar 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

Renuka @ Balabai Nivrutti Bhise and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Asif @ Mental Abdul Sattar Shaikh @ Mohd. Asif @ Mental Abdul Sattar Khan Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Sachin Janardan Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd Aadil Mohd Salim Khan @ Rayani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharmaraj @ Sai Laxman Das Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pintu and Maruti Dattartay Harihar Vs the State of Maharashtra