cwp1427.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1427 OF 2017
Yovel s/o Vijaykumar Gauri (C-200),
Open Prison, Visapur.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik,
2) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Superintendent,
Open Prison, Visapur.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Rupesh A. Jaiswal Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr.D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.
1 and 2.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.] :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 01:28:32 ::: cwp1427.17 2 heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This Petition is filed with following prayer:
"B] To quash and set aside order of Resp. No.1 dated 29.07.2017 and thereby direct Respondent No.1 to release Petitioner on Parole Leave for 30 days on execution of Personal (P.R.) Bond and, (S.B.) Bond with Guarantor."
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invites our attention to the impugned order and submits that there is no material placed on record along with the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondents to substantiate the reasons assigned in the impugned order that, if the Petitioner is released on parole there is ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 01:28:32 ::: cwp1427.17 3 possibility of threatening to the complainant and witnesses by him. It is submitted that when on earlier occasion the Petitioner was released on furlough, not only he attended the concerned police station during the said period but also reported back to the jail within time. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled to be released on parole.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State relying upon the averments in the affidavit in reply, submits that as police report is adverse to the Petitioner, and also the medical certificate shows that the father of the Petitioner was not suffering from any serious ailment, therefore the application of the Petitioner has been rightly rejected.
5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 01:28:32 ::: cwp1427.17 4 appearing for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. We have carefully perused the reasons assigned by Respondent No.1 in the impugned order. It appears that without making reference to any specific material/ statement either of the complainant or the witnesses, it has been mentioned in the impugned order that, in case the Petitioner is released on parole, there is possibility of threatening to the complainant and witnesses by him. Even the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, does not mention about recording of the statement of complainant or witnesses by the concerned police officer from the State of Karnataka, who has submitted/ forwarded report to Respondent No.1.
6. Keeping in view the past/ earlier record of the Petitioner that when he was released on furlough, he attended the concerned police station and reported back to the jail within time, and also considering the fact that his case is ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 01:28:32 ::: cwp1427.17 5 recommended by the Superintendent of the concerned jail, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner deserves to be released on parole.
7. In the light of above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. We direct the Respondents to release the Petitioner on parole, subject to completion of the usual procedural formalities including furnishing of sureties etc., as expeditiously as possible, however in any case within THREE WEEKS from today.
8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/NOV17 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 01:28:32 :::