Recently, the Bombay High Court rejected a petition seeking to overturn an order denying a 30-day parole extension. The court observed discrepancies in the documents and questioned the choice of hospital, the court found the documentation suspicious and rejected the petitioner’s request. An inquiry into the issuance of these certificates was ordered.
The petition seeks relief to set aside the impugned order 28.08.2024 and grant a 30-day parole extension on humanitarian grounds, the convict was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and sought parole extension after being given 30 days for his marriage. He cited his wife’s pregnancy complications as the reason for the extension, submitting medical certificates from a hospital in Aurangabad, despite her residing in Nashik. The court noted discrepancies in the documents and raised concerns over the choice of hospital.
The court expressed doubts about their legitimacy, noting the unusual choice of hospital and the need for more clarity in the submitted records. The court found it suspicious that despite being a resident of Nashik, the petitioner’s wife sought treatment from a hospital in Aurangabad. Further, the court highlighted that certificates from Eagle Multispeciality Hospital, especially those issued by Dr. Suraj S. Rana, had appeared frequently in similar parole cases. Dr. Rana, an accused in a separate criminal case, further raised concerns about the authenticity of the documents.
Hence, the court rejected the petitioner’s request for an extension of parole and ordered an inquiry into the issuance of these certificates by the District Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad. A report on the matter was to be submitted within 15 days.
Case Title: Kundan Suresh Pardeshi vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
Citation: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1602 OF 2024
Coram: Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Justice Vibha Kankanwadi
Order Date: 09.09.2024
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Sharda P. Chate
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. G.A. Kulkarni (A.P.P.)