RAMESH ASARAM NATHBHAJAN (C-8250) v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
WP/1207/2025 · 2025-10-09
Shri N B Suryawanshi, Smt Vaishali Patil Jadhav
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27235 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27235 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
917 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1207 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1207 OF 2025 Ramesh Asaram Nathbhajan (c-8250) VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... • Mr. Madhukar M. Parghane, Advocate for the Petitioner • Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 – State ... CORAM :
NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL–JADHAV, JJ. DATE :
OCTOBER 09, 2025 P E R C O U R T :
1. By this petition, petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to grant him parole leave for construction of his house. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by respondent no. 4, thereby rejecting his request for grant of parole.
2. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, and it is contended that parole can be granted on the grounds given in Rule 12 of Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough And Parole) Rules, 2024 (for short, “the said Rules”).
3. Rule 12 of the said Rules is as follows : komal kamble
1/2 2025:BHC-AUG:29159-DB
917 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1207 OF 2025
“Grounds for grant of parole – (1) To deal with serious illness of his spouse, blood relatives, birth of his child, or attend to the aftermath of natural calamities like floods, fire, earthquake resulting in damage to his house and property. (2) To attend to the final rituals on the death of his blood relatives or spouse. (3) To attend to the marriage of his children and siblings.”
4. Having heard learned advocate for petitioner and learned APP, and on perusal of record, it is clear that petitioner claims parole for construction of his house on the ground that there is no male member in his family to look after the construction of the said house. Admittedly, the petitioner is allotted Gharkul by the Government.
5. It is, therefore, clear that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered, as the case of petitioner does not fall in the grounds mentioned in Rule 12. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition. The Criminal Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
[VAISHALI PATIL–JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] komal kamble
2/2