Dismissed

Rajesh Aglesh Raman v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2016WP/1894/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction heard a writ petition seeking extension of parole for a petitioner who had been released for his sister's urgent medical surgery. Despite medical evidence showing the need for urgent operation, the Court found the delay unsatisfactory and rejected the extension prayer.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for extension of parole is rejected; the petitioner must surrender back to the prison by 24.6.2016.

Rajesh Aglesh Raman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

cri wp 1894-16.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1894 OF 2016

¶5

Rajesh Aglesh Raman .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Appearances

¶10

Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶12

MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : JUNE 20, 2016.

¶13

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

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶16

The petitioner preferred an application for parole which

¶17

was rejected. The petitioner then approached this Court and

¶18

this Court by order dated 31.3.2016 granted parole to the petitioner on the ground of medical problem of his sister

¶19

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5

¶20

cri wp 1894-16.doc

¶21

Mahesha A. Raman aged 25 years. The medical problem was that she was suffering from renal stones.

¶22

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 31.3.2016, the

¶23

petitioner was released on parole on 25.4.2016 and he had to surrender on 24.5.2016. The petitioner preferred an application for extension of parole to the concerned Authority stating that his sister had to be operated, however, the application for extension of parole came to be rejected by the concerned Authority by order dated 17.5.2016 on the ground that the same Authority who has granted parole can consider the extension of parole. Thus, the petitioner has approached this court with the prayer that the period of parole be extended.

¶24

The petitioner has annexed four medical certificates to this petition. Two certificates are dated 20.7.2015 and 23.7.2015. Both these medical certificates show that the

¶25

sister of the petitioner had renal stones. Thereafter

¶26

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5

¶27

cri wp 1894-16.doc

¶28

certificate is annexed which is dated 17.3.2016. The said certificate shows that the sister of the petitioner is suffering from uretic stone and she needs urgent operation. Based on this certificate, parole was granted by this Court to the petitioner by order dated 31.3.2016. The last certificate which is annexed to the petition is dated 9.5.2016. It shows that the sister of the petitioner is suffering from renal stones

¶29

and she needs urgent surgical treatment. The certificate dated 17.3.2016 also shows that the sister of the petitioner needs urgent operation. Though the petitioner was released on parole on 25.4.2016, till today no operation has been carried out though almost two months have passed since the period that the petitioner was on parole. In fact, certificate dated 23.7.2015 shows that the sister of the petitioner requires operation and certificate dated 17.3.2016 shows that she needs urgent operation, yet till today despite urgency, no operation has been performed though the petitioner has been out on parole for almost two months.

¶30

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

¶31

cri wp 1894-16.doc

¶32

It is seen that the petitioner had approached the vacation Court and by order dated 30.5.2016, this Court (Coram : B.R. Gavai & B.P. Colabawalla, JJ.), by way of adinterim relief, directed to continue the order dated 31.3.2016 till further orders. On account of this, the petitioner, even as of today, is on parole.

¶33

7. Looking to the fact that in the medical certificate dated

¶34

17.3.2016, it is stated that the sister of the petitioner was required to be urgently operated and looking to the fact that though almost two months have been passed since the period that the petitioner was on parole and yet the operation has not been conducted, we are not inclined to extend the period of parole as we are of the opinion that sufficient time was granted to the petitioner. The reason for extension of parole does not appears to be satisfactory, hence, the prayer for extension of parole is rejected. The petitioner to surrender back to the prison by 24.6.2016.

¶35

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

¶36

cri wp 1894-16.doc

¶37

In view of the above, rule is discharged.

¶38

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

¶39

jfoanz vkacsjdj

¶40

5 of 5

Rajesh Aglesh Raman v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Aglesh Raman 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

Rajkumar Ramdas Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Afzal Suleman Khan @ Parvesh @ Parmesh Guddu Gupta @ Pabhujyot Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhauji Alias Bhavsingh Tulshiram Barde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailesh Chimanlal Bhatt Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod Bhaurao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijaykumar Vyankatesh Parsa Vs the State of Maharashtra