Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 730 (BOM)

Pramod s/o Manohar Banate v. State of Maharashtra

2009-06-23

P.V.HARDAS, R.K.DESHPANDE

body2009
JUDGMENT ( PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 3.2.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad rejecting the application of the petitioner for his release on parole on account of the serious ailment of his mother. Since a communication was received by this Court from jail, it was registered as Criminal Writ Petition and we had appointed Shri Abhishek Kulkarni learned Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 3. According to the petitioner, mother of the petitioner was suffering from Ischemic heart disease with Hypertension with Status Asthmatic. The petitioner’s mother is also said to be suffering from Diabetes. The petitioner on the similar grounds had earlier filed Criminal Writ Petition No.694 of 1998 which came to be rejected by this Court observing therein that the certificate which was produced by the petitioner was not either from a doctor practising in medicine or a Cardiologist. This Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application afresh and consequent to the liberty granted by this Court, a fresh application came to be filed. 4. The respondents while rejecting the application of the petitioner have observed that the ailment with which the mother of the petitioner was suffering was not a serious ailment, as on account of advanced age the mother of the petitioner requires rest. According to us such an approach is contrary to the ailment which is described in the medical certificate. Mother of the petitioner is said to be suffering from Status Asthmatic with Diabetes and Ischemic heart disease with Hypertension. According to us, the aforesaid disease is certainly serious disease warranting the petitioner for his release on parole. No other reason is ascribed in the impugned order passed in the application of the petitioner seeking his release on parole. In the light of that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant application of the petitioner for his release on parole on such terms and conditions which the authorities consider it appropriate. 6. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant application of the petitioner for his release on parole on such terms and conditions which the authorities consider it appropriate. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand).