Allowed

Ashish @ Amddy Virendra Rathod v. State of Mah. Thr. Divisional Commissioner Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC12 Aug 2022WP/459/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of a parole application under Rule 19 of the Prisons Rules. The court quashed the rejection order due to lack of material evidence regarding the petitioner's father's illness and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the parole application was quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted to the Divisional Commissioner for fresh consideration within six weeks.

Ashish @ Amddy Virendra Rathod Vs State of Mah. Thr… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 / 3 932-WP 459.2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2022 Ashish @ Maddy Virendra Rathod (In jail)

¶4

vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra and another

¶6

Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶8

Ms. Shweta Wankhede, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.M.Ghodeswar, APP for respondents.

¶9

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES JJ.
DATE : 12/08/2022

¶10

Heard Ms.Shweta Wankhede, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶11

2.In the present petition, the petitioner has
challenged order dated 14/06/2022, passed by the
respondent No.1 – Divisional Commissioner, whereby
an application for grant of parole under Rule 19 of
the Prisons(Bombay Furlough and Parole)Rules,1959
has been rejected.

¶12

3.According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the father of the petitioner is suffering
from serious illness, which the respondent No.1 did

¶13

KOLHE

¶14

2 / 3 932-WP 459.2022

¶15

not take into consideration. Certain medical papers
are annexed with the present petition.

¶16

4.Mr.Ghodeswar, learned APP invited
attention of this Court to the material on record and
demonstrated that papers pertaining to the alleged
serious illness of the father of the petitioner were not
placed before the respondent No.1 and that therefore,
no fault can be found with the impugned order.

¶17

5.We are of the opinion that under Rule
19(2)(a) of the aforesaid Rules, parole can be granted
to a convict on the ground of serious illness of father.
In the present case, the petitioner claims that his
father is seriously ill. But a decision on such a prayer
under Rule 19(2)(a) of the said Rules can be
considered only if relevant material is placed before
the respondent No.1. In the present case, since
supporting documents were not placed on record, we
do not think that any error can be attributed to the
respondent No.1 in passing the impugned order.

¶18

6.Nevertheless, if there is indeed material
available with the petitioner to support his case for
grant of parole under Rule 19(2)(a) of the aforesaid
Rules, an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner
to place such material before respondent No.1.

¶19

KOLHE

¶20

3 / 3 932-WP 459.2022

¶21

7.In view of the above, the writ petition is
allowed.

¶22

8.The impugned order is quashed and set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent
No.1 for fresh consideration.

¶23

9.Liberty is granted to the petitioner to place
on record documents and other material in support of
his claim that his father is suffering from serious
illness for which he is entitled for grant of parole
under the said Rules.

¶24

10.The additional documents and material
shall be placed on record before the respondent No.1
by the petitioner within three weeks from today.

¶25

11.The respondent No.1 is directed to
decide the application after taking into consideration
such material, if any, filed by the petitioner, within a
period of six weeks from today.

¶26

 JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

Digitally signed byRAVIKANT CHANDRAKANT KOLHE Signing Date:13.08.2022 15:47

¶28

KOLHE

Ashish @ Amddy Virendra Rathod v. State of Mah. Thr. Divisional Commissioner Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish @ Amddy Virendra Rathod v. State of Mah. Thr. Divisional Commissioner Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajanan Waman Kalbande and 6 Others Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Umarkhed Dist Yavatmal and Another

Naseem @ Nasimoddin Moseenoddin Jamadar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Home Dep. (Special) Mantralaya Mumbai and Another

Manisha D/O Motiram Laghe Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Amadapur Police Station, Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana and Another

State of Maha, Thru Pso Vs Walmik Undraji Gawande and 4 Ors.

Rekha W/O Kashinath Taksande Vs State of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary Ministry of Road and Surface Transport Mantralaya Mumbai and 2 Ot

Dr. Dinkar S/O Narayan Bajad Vs State Ofmah. Thr. Collector Civil Lines Nagpur and Another