Allowed

Gajanan Khandu Tiwade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jun 2016WP/1703/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition regarding parole for a petitioner convicted of rape, whose wife required urgent hysterectomy. The High Court, after reviewing prior rejections due to lack of specific surgical dates and prosecuting witness concerns, noted prosecutrix consent and medical evidence of treatment, and granted parole for 30 days to facilitate surgery.

What did the court decide?

Parole granted to the petitioner for a period of 30 days on usual terms for the purpose of his wife's surgery.

Gajanan Khandu Tiwade Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cri wp 1703-16.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1703 OF 2016

¶5

Gajanan Khandu Tiwade .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Appearances

¶10

Mr. Kedar J. Patil	Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal	APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶12

MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : JUNE 28, 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

¶18

29.10.2014 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said

¶19

application came to be rejected by order dated 10.2.2015.

¶20

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.

¶21

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4

¶22

cri wp 1703-16.doc

¶23

The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 2.11.2015.

¶24

The appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed on

¶25

the ground that the petitioner is convicted in a case of rape. The second ground for dismissing the appeal is that no medical papers relating to the treatment or investigation of

¶26

illness of his wife were submitted. The third ground for dismissing the appeal was that it was stated in the medical certificate that the wife of the petitioner required surgery, however the exact date of surgery has not been stated.

¶27

As far as the first ground for rejection of appeal is concerned that the petitioner is convicted in a case of rape, Shri. Pawar, Police Inspector of Shahapur Police Station has recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. In her statement,

¶28

the prosecutrix stated that if the petitioner is released on parole, she does not apprehend any danger to her and she has no objection to the petitioner being released on parole.

¶29

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4

¶30

cri wp 1703-16.doc

¶31

The second ground for rejecting the appeal is that no treatment or investigation papers in respect of illness of the wife of the petitioner were submitted by the petitioner. It is seen that the wife of the petitioner has undergone sonography. So also, the medical papers show that the wife of the petitioner is undergoing treatment.

¶32

7. The third reason for dismissing the appeal was that the

¶33

exact date of operation has not been indicated. As far as this reason for dismissing the appeal is concerned, the medical papers annexed by the petitioner dated 14.3.2016 show that the wife of the petitioner requires hysterectomy operation as early as possible. For this purpose, if the petitioner is released on parole, he will get the exact date of operation fixed.

¶34

In view of the above facts, we are inclined to grant parole to the petitioner. The petitioner to be released on parole for a period of 30 days on the usual terms and

¶35

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4

¶36

cri wp 1703-16.doc

¶37

conditions as set out by the Jail Authorities.

¶38

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶39

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

¶40

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4

Gajanan Khandu Tiwade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan Khandu Tiwade v. 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

Satish Raghunath Devkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Raghunath Devkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradumna Balgonda Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sameer Gulam Hussain Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Ramchandra Haldankar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shekhar Chandrakant Nadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra