← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/95/2015rejected

Sandesh Sukhdev Jaronde (In Jail) v. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur And Another

2015-03-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.B. Chaudhari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.N. Deshmukh2 pages

3003wp95.15 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.95 OF 2015 (Sandesh Sukhdev Jaronde vs. The Divisional Commissioner and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Ms. Radha Mishra, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner. Ms. T. Udeshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

---------- CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 30, 2015 The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by rejection of his application dated 7/7/2014 for grant of parole for 30 days on the ground of illness of his daughter by respondent no.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit-in-reply of respondents. We have found that application of petitioner for parole came to be rejected mainly on considering the fact that earlier when petitioner was released on leave, he had absconded and since did not surrender, was required to be arrested and brought back to prison. From the Police report, it is noted that

3003wp95.15 2/2 apart from petitioner, there are other family members, who can look after petitioner's daughter. Moreover, no documents are placed on record in support of illness of his daughter, who is stated to be ill as on 7/7/2014.

In that view of the matter and since petitioner's wife and his father are available to take care of his daughter and since it is noted that petitioner failed to surrender and was required to be arrested after 93 days when he was earlier released on leave, we do not find any substance in the criminal writ petition. Hence, we pass the following order :

Order Criminal Writ Petition No.95/2015 is rejected.

The fee payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the petitioner is quantified as rupees fifteen hundred.

JUDGE JUDGE khj