Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 491 (BOM)

Kashinath Vithal Sandhyan v. State of Maharashtra

2007-04-04

P.V.HARDAS, S.P.KUKDAY

body2007
JUDGMENT S.P.KUKDAY, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner herein who is undergoing sentence for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has senta letter dated 9.2.2007 to this Court in respect rejection of his application for parole. This letter is treated as a Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner submitted an application on 10.1.2007 for parole on the ground of sickness of his wife Mangala. That application came to be rejected by order dated 5.2.2007 on the ground that the release of the petitioner on parole might be prejudicial to the safety of the prosecutrix in the criminal case. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that on earlier occasion while disposing of the Criminal Writ Petition No.361 of 2005, this Court has released the petitioner on parole by imposing the conditions that he shall not enter Buldhana District during the period of leave and shall attend Jamner Police Station every MOnday. Therefore, the application for parole could not have been rejected on the ground mentioned in the order of rejection. 5. The State has filed its affidavit in reply which justifies the order passed by the competent authority. 6. The petitioner is seeking parole on the ground of sickness of his wife because his wife Mrs. Mangalabai is shown to be suffering from enteric fever and is advised rest for a period of 15 days. The certificate is issued on 23.11.2006. From the certificate is clear that the ground for parole itself does not survive. Learned Counsel has however emphasized that the rejection of the application on the ground that the petitioner cannot be released on parole because his release would be prejudicial to the safety of the victim is not proper. Though we accept this contention of the petitioner as the petitioner was earlier released by imposing certain conditions. The facts of this case show that the ground for parole does not survive. 7. We, therefore, dispose of the petition with observation that if in future the petitioner makes an application for parole, it should be considered in proper perspective keeping in mind the earlier order passed by this Court. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above. 7. We, therefore, dispose of the petition with observation that if in future the petitioner makes an application for parole, it should be considered in proper perspective keeping in mind the earlier order passed by this Court. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above. The fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner is quantified at Rs.3000/-.