Dismissed

Shilpa Yogesh Ingale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Feb 2017WP/189/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition seeking parole for a petitioner suffering from hypothyroidism and varicose veins. The court held that since medical treatment was adequately provided within the prison, the case was not fit for parole, and Rule 19 did not explicitly provide for such grounds.

What did the court decide?

Rule is discharged; Petitioner's plea for parole is rejected.

Shilpa Yogesh Ingale Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

WP.189/2017(902)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 189 OF 2017

Shilpa Yogesh Ingale

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Mr. Prosper D'Souza, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI AND M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :1^ST FEBRUARY, 2017

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

2. The Petitioner preferred an application for parole on the ground

¶16

of her own illness. According to the Petitioner she is suffering from Hypothyroidism with b/1 Varicose Veins lower extremities. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 27th May, 2016.

¶17

3. Being aggrieved thereby the Petitioner preferred an Appeal.

¶18

The said Appeal was dismissed by an order dated 24th October 2016. Hence, this Petition.

¶19

2 WP.189/2017(902)

¶20

The case of the Petitioner is that she is suffering from

¶21

Hypothyroidism with b/1 Varicose Veins lower extremities. The application of the Petitioner for parole was rejected on the ground that treatment was being provided to the Petitioner in the prison. As far as thyroid is concerned the test reports of the Petitioner show that Serum Thyroxine [T4] is 12.7 whereas the normal range is 4.5 12.0. As far as thyroid is concerned the Petitioner is being treated for the same by the prison Doctors in the prison hospital. Even as far as other ailments of the Petitioner are concerned the medical report show that adequate medical treatment is being provided to the Petitioner. In any event Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 does not provide for parole on the ground of illness of the prisoner himself/herself.

¶22

Looking to the fact that the medical problems of the Petitioner are being adequately looked into by the prison authorities we do not think this is a fit case for grant of parole. Hence, Rule is discharged.

¶23

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

Shilpa Yogesh Ingale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shilpa Yogesh Ingale 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandurang Shridhas Vadane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Omprakash Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shilpa Yogesh Ingale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh @ Bandya Raghunath Sawant