Partly allowed

Narendra Lalmani Giri v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Apr 2017WP/969/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought parole via writ petition regarding his wife's health. Court set aside rejection orders directing Competent Authority to reconsider application afresh upon submission of specific medical papers within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 26.3.2015 and 23.11.2016 set aside; parole application directed to be considered afresh within six weeks.

Narendra Lalmani Giri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

17. cri wp 969-17.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 969 OF 2017

¶5

Narendra Lalmani Giri

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mrs. Farhana Shah Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶13

M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶14

DATE : APRIL 18, 2017.

¶15

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

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

¶18

4.8.2014 on the ground of illness of his wife. The application

¶19

was rejected by order dated 26.3.2015. Being aggrieved

¶20

thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was

¶21

dismissed by order dated 23.11.2016, hence, this petition.

¶22

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

¶23

17. cri wp 969-17.doc

¶24

The application of the petitioner for parole came to be

¶25

rejected on the ground that no medical papers were produced to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that it was necessary for his wife to undergo operation. It is an admitted fact that no medical reports were annexed to the application for parole to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that it was necessary for his wife to undergo operation.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before

¶27

us the sonography report to show that the wife of the petitioner has a fibroid which is 4.5 x 3.2 cms in size. However, no such report was produced before the Competent Authority, hence, we cannot find any fault with

¶28

the Competent Authority in rejecting the application of the petitioner for parole.

¶29

However, looking to the Ultra Sonography Report of the

¶30

wife of the petitioner which shows that she has a fibroid

¶31

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

¶32

17. cri wp 969-17.doc

¶33

which is 4.5 x 3.2 cms in size and the case of the petitioner

¶34

that his wife is required to undergo hysterectomy, we set aside the orders dated 26.3.2015 and 23.11.2016 and direct

¶35

the Competent Authority to consider the prayer of the petitioner for parole afresh. We also direct the petitioner to submit the medical papers pertaining to the wife of the petitioner before the Competent Authority.

¶36

The application of the petitioner to be decided within

¶37

six weeks of submission of medical papers by the petitioner.

¶38

Rule is made absolute in view of the above terms.

¶39

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶40

jfoanz vkacsjdj

¶41

3 of 3

Narendra Lalmani Giri v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Lalmani Giri 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

The State of Maharashtra through the Additional Chief Secretary and Ors. Vs Dr Sachin Suresh Chappalwar

Khemsing Dhansing Kshetri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandeep Tukaram Udmale Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Mukhtar Tayyab Kazi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Haseena @ Sultana Fakir Kazi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Haseena @ Sultana Fakir Kazi Vs the State of Maharashtra