Bombay High CourtWP/188/2020dismissed

Arif Baksa Mehbub Baksa v. State Of Mah. Thr. Divisional Commissioner Nagpur And Another

2020-08-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote2 pages

26 WP 188-2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.188 OF 2020 Arif baksa Mehbub Baksa ...Versus...

State of Maharashtra through Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders or directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - Ms. S.D. Wankhede Advocate for petitioner Shri S.J. Kadu, learned APP for respondents CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATE : 07/08/2020 Heard Ms Wankhede, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Kadu, learned A.P.P for the respondent/State. The application for parole filed by the petitioner is rejected by the impugned order dated 20/12/2019. It is contended that the petitioner was released earlier on furlough on 01/11/2017 and had not surrendered and was required to be arrested and brought back after period of 127 days. The petitioner was again released on furlough on 18/12/2019, on which occasion, he surrendered on due date on 16/01/2020.

It is, however, material to note that during prior to the grant of the furlough leave on the last occasion petitioner had applied for grant of parole leave on 28/06/2019 on the ground of illness of his wife, which application has been dismissed by the impugned order. Since the petitioner has already availed furlough leave subsequent to the earlier application for grant of parole

26 WP 188-2020.odt dated 28/06/2019, and the fact that the documents on record do not indicate that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from any serious illness, we find that the order of rejection does not suffer from any infirmity.

The petition is therefore dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE J. Pethe