Santosh Mohan Rajput Through His Wife Daksha Santosh Rajput v. The State Of Maharashtra

Sherla V.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.405 OF 2016 Santosh Mohan Rajput through his wife Daksha Santosh Rajpur ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms.Rohini Dandekar for the Petitioner Mrs.U.V. Kejriwal, APP, for Respondent State CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE: JUNE 21, 2016 ORAL ORDER (Per Smt.V.K. Tahilramani, J.):

1.

Heard both sides.

2.

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.

This petition is preferred by the wife of the convict Santosh Mohan Rajput, who is at present lodged in Nashik Road Central Prison. The prayer of the wife of the convict is that her husband be released on parole. It is her case that her husband made an application for parole on account of her medical treatment. However, the application came to be rejected. The wife of the convict has also made a reference to an application dated 1 / 3

18.5.2013 and application dated 24.6.2013 sent by the convict to this Court. There is also a reference to criminal Writ Petition No.301 of 2012 preferred by the convict. As far as criminal Writ Petition No.301 of 2012 is concerned, the same has been disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 28.8.2012. As far as application dated 18.5.2013 is concerned, it is numbered as Criminal Application No.252 of 2013 in Criminal Writ Petition No.301 of 2012. The said Criminal Application has been disposed of by this Court by order dated 1.12.2015. As far as application dated 28.6.2013 is concerned, it was numbered as Criminal Writ Petition No.2605 of 2013 and the same has been disposed of by this Court. Thus, all the other petitions and applications to which reference has been made in the present writ petition have been disposed of by this Court.

4.

As far as the present petition is concerned, it is seen that the wife of the convict has preferred this petition stating that her husband be released on parole on account of her medical treatment. It is pertinent to note that she has not stated what is the illness nor has she annexed any medical certificates to this petition to substantiate her claim that she needs treatment. Moreover, it is seen that every year from 2012, her husband i.e., the convict Santosh Mohan Rajput has been released on furlough. He was released on furlough in the year 2012 on 24.9.2012; in the year 2013, 2 / 3

he was released on furlough on 7.11.2013; in the year 2014, he was released on furlough on 1.9.2014; in the year 2015, he was released on furlough on 5.6.2015 and this year, he has been released on furlough on 25.5.2016 and as of today, the petitioner is out on furlough. 5.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) 3 / 3