Dismissed

Amarsing Ramji Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Jul 2016WP/2109/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order refuses the petitioner's petition for extension of parole. The court rejected the request because the medical certificate regarding the petitioner's wife's illness was insufficient; no specific treatment dates were fixed, and the petitioner had no prior record of complying with study leave. Previously, he had overstayed parole and furlough multiple times.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amarsing Ramji Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

6.WP2109_2016

¶2

vidya

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2109 OF 2016

¶5

Amarsing Ramji Rathod ... Petitioner vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

Ms. Sarojini Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM: MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶9

JULY 14, 2016.

¶10

ORAL ORDER: (Per Mrs. V.K. Tahilramani, J.)

¶11

Heard both sides.

¶12

Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶13

The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was granted and the petitioner was released on parole on 23^rd May, 2015 for a period of 30 days. The petitioner had to surrender on 22^nd June, 2015. Meanwhile the petitioner preferred an application for extension of parole, being his first application

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

6.WP2109_2016

¶16

for extension of parole. The said application was granted and the parole period of the petitioner was extended by further period of 30 days. Thus, the petitioner had to surrender on 22^nd July, 2015. Meanwhile, on 8^th July, 2015, the petitioner preferred second application for extension of parole. The said application came to be rejected. Hence this Petition.

¶17

The record of the petitioner shows that on 6^th July, 2009 when the petitioner was released on furlough, he did not report back in time and there was overstay of 131 days. On 14^th November, 2011 when the petitioner was released on parole, there was overstay of 38 days. Thereafter the petitioner was released on parole on 24^th July, 2012. On that occasion also, there was overstay. The petitioner was released on furlough on 18^th September, 2013 and on 3^rd April, 2014 and on both the occasions, there was overstay. The medical certificate relied upon by the petitioner shows that his wife was suffering from hypertension and heart disease since last 6 months and she was advised rest. The doctor had advised that she required angiography and angioplasty, however, no date of angiography and angioplasty was fixed. Though the wife of the petitioner was ailing for 6 months and the petitioner was on parole for 2 months, the petitioner did not

¶18

2 of 3

¶19

6.WP2109_2016

¶20

take steps to get angiography and angioplasty performed. Thereafter, on the basis of this medical certificate, the petitioner was seeking second extension of 30 days of parole. The medical certificate shows that no angiography or angioplasty was fixed and the certificate only shows that the wife of the petitioner needed rest. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, Rule is discharged.

¶21

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶22

3 of 3

Amarsing Ramji Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amarsing Ramji Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Bharat Mulji Parmar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dharmaraj @ Sai Laxman Das Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Sattarul Najrul Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asghar Yusuf Mukaddam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gangaram Soma Kamble and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra