Magdum Kasam Sayyad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8246 Bom
Judgement Date : 30 October, 2017

Bombay High Court
Magdum Kasam Sayyad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 30 October, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
                                                                          501. wp 4418.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4418 OF 2017

                 Magdum Kasam Sayyad                            .. Petitioner
                      Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra and ors.               .. Respondents 

                 Mr.Satyavrat Joshi i/b Mr.Sumant Deshpande, for the Petitioner.
                 Mr. Deepak Thakare, PP a/w Mr.Arfan Saith, APP  for State.


                                               CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                                              M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

30th OCTOBER, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.

V .K.TAHILRAMANI ) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

3. The petitioner has prayed that he may be permitted to attend the marriage of one Saddique Abbas Ali Sayyad between 02/11/2017 to 04/11/2017. 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2017 01:43:39 :::

501. wp 4418.17.doc

4. The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment at Yerwada Central Prison as he has convicted under Sections 302, 307 read with 149 of IPC. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before this Court came to be dismissed. It is stated that SLP has also been dismissed. In such case, this Court cannot even grant temporary bail to the petitioner to attend the marriage.

5. According to the petitioner, Saddique Abbas Ali Sayyad is his nephew and the petitioner desires to attend the marriage of his nephew. In such case, the appropriate course for the petitioner would be to prefer an application for parole on the ground of marriage of his close relative. Any such prayer cannot be directly entertained by this Court. The petitioner had an appropriate remedy and he ought to have availed of the same. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition. Rule is discharged.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) 2/2 ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2017 01:43:39 :::