Suraj Narendra Darshanlal (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4331 Bom

        cwp502.16                              1




                                                                                
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                        
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.502 OF 2016.




                                                       
       PETITIONER:            Suraj Narendra Darshanlal,
                                 (Convict No.C-4657 detained




                                           
                                  in Central Prison, Amravati.)
                             
                                         : VERSUS :

       RESPONDENTS: 1.  State of Maharashtra through Divisional
                            
                        Commissioner, Amravati.

                                  2.  The Superintendent of Jail, 
                                      Central Prison, Amravati.
      


       -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   



       Ms.S.H.Bhatia, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner.
       Mr.T.A.Mirza, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-





                                      CORAM:      B.R.GAVAI AND 
                                                             V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED: 1st AUGUST, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by

consent of learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court being

aggrieved by the rejection of his application for grant of parole.

3. The application is rejected on following two grounds:-

(i) That, the petitioner has not produced any

document on record to substantiate that his

father is suffering from a serious ailment.

(ii) That, it is not clear as to where petitioner would be staying i.e. with his father or with his aunt.

4. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, the perusal of

the police report itself would reveal that the statements of the

relatives of the petitioner recorded by police show that the

petitioner's father is suffering from a serious ailment.

5. Insofar as second ground is concerned, undisputedly,

both, the petitioner's father as well as his aunt, are resident of

Amravati, in any case the apprehension of the respondents can be

taken care of by directing to the petitioner to report to the

concerned Police Station.

6. In that view of the matter, impugned order is quashed

and set aside. The application is allowed. The petitioner is

directed to be released on parole for a period of thirty days, after

following the due procedure.

7. The petitioner shall report to the Police Station

Frezarpura, Amravati on every Sunday and Thursday during the

period of parole.

8. Fees to be paid to the learned counsel appointed by the

Legal Aid Committee to represent the petitioner is quantified at

Rs.1500/-.

                      JUDGE                                             JUDGE


       chute










                                                                            
                                                    
                                                   
                      -CERTIFICATE- 

I certify that this Order uploaded is a true and

correct copy of original signed order.

Uploaded by : P.Z.Chute,

Pvt.Secretary.

Uploaded on: 02/08/2016.