Narendra Bhalchandra Bhoir v. The Divisional Commissioner And ORS

Rane * 1/2 * WP-2114-2017 (sr.902) 6.6.2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2114 OF 2017 Narendra Bhalchandra Bhoir ......Petitioner V/s.

The Divisional Commissioner and Ors.

.......Respondents - - - - Mr. B.G. Tangsali, Advocate for the petitioner. None for Respondents no.1 to 3.

Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for Respondent no.4, State. CORAM :- CORAM :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :- DATE :- 6 June, 2017.

6 June, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) ORAL JUDGMENT (Per :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) 1).

Heard both sides.

2).

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

Rane * 2/2 * WP-2114-2017 (sr.902) 6.6.2017 3).

The petitioner was released on parole by order dated 7 April, 2017. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was released on parole on 21 April, 2017 for a period of 45 days. The said period comes to an end today. The petitioner is now seeking extension of parole for a further period of 15 days. Reliance is placed on the Medical Certificate dated 29 May, 2017 which shows that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from severe Menorregia and Anaemia since last one year, but she has not been cured. Hence, she has been advised surgery. The petitioner was on parole for a period of 45 days. If any surgery was required, the same could have been very well performed during the period of 45 days. The parole period can be extended from 45 days to 60 days, only once in three years and that too in exceptional cases. We find no exceptional circumstances in the present case. Hence, we are not inclined to extend the period of parole. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Rule is discharged.

(SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)