1 99211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 992 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2005 Vishram Kama Vanel ...Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. M.I.Y. Solkar for the Appellant Mrs. Aruna Pai, A.P.P., for Respondent No. 1 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2011 P.C.:- Two reasons have been stated in support of request to release the applicant on bail. The first reason is that the applicant is suffering from serious ailment, and would like to take treatment from the hospital / doctor of his choice. The applicant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 and other I.P.C. offences. His application for bail on merits has already been 2 99211 rejected in the past. As regards the ailment, the Medical Officer, Kolhapur Central Prison, has certified that the applicant is under treatment for epilepsy, and is presently physically fit. 2. Relying on the circumstance that the applicant was hospitalised between 22nd July, 2011 to 6th August, 2011, it was argued by the counsel for the applicant that the ailment of the applicant is very serious. We are not inclined to accept this submission. Indeed, the applicant was kept in Rajarshi Chatrapati Shahu Maharaj Government Medical College & Chatrapati Pramilaraje Sarvopchar Hospital, Kolhapur, between 22nd July, 2011 till 6th August, 2011. That presupposes that he was provided best medical facility, keeping in mind his ailment. It also indicates that the applicant was discharged, because he was found to be physically fit to undergo the remaining sentence. The Medical Officer has also certified the fact that presently, the applicant is physically fit, and is undergoing treatment for epilepsy. This is the latest certificate given by the Medical Officer. In that view of the matter, the question of granting bail to the applicant on the ground that he is suffering from serious illness does not arise. 3 99211 3. The second ground urged before us is that the applicant has already lost his only son recently, and there is no other earning member in his family. Further, his wife is presently seriously ill, and has been advised surgery, but the wife is unable to take further treatment because he is not in a position to arrange for sufficient funds. On this basis, it is submitted that, if the applicant is released on bail, he would be able to provide for medical facilities to his wife. Even this argument does not commend to us. We would accept the statement of the applicant that his wife is seriously ill, and there is no one in his family to support her for arranging funds for her treatment. Even then, nothing prevents the applicant to apply for parole or furlough leave, if he is eligible in that behalf. 4. We are informed by the learned A.P.P. that the applicant, some time back, has availed of parole leave. If that is so, the applicant could have made necessary arrangement to ensure that his wife is provided sufficient medical treatment expeditiously. Even now, the applicant can resort to the same option, on being released on parole, which period can be extended up to 90 days as per the rules, depending on the circumstances of the case. The question is: Whether the applicant should be released on bail, in spite of the finding of guilt by the Court 4 99211 below on the abovesaid grounds. We are not inclined to do so. This application is rejected. 5. At this stage, the counsel for the applicant submits that, at least, prayer for temporary bail can be considered. We are not inclined to accede to this request. If we were satisfied with the two grounds pressed into service, we would have straightaway released the applicant on regular bail during the pendency of the appeal. 6. We have already indicated earlier that it is open to the applicant to resort to remedy of parole/furlough. If such application is filed, the Authority shall decide the same expeditiously, in any case not later than two weeks from receipt thereof, and communicate the decision thereon to the applicant within the same time. Needless to mention that the said decision will be in accordance with the extant Regulations and norms specified in the Rules. This direction would meet the ends of justice. R.G. KETKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.