Bombay High Court
Shobha William Jatanna vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 24 August, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 6.crwp.2734.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2734 OF 2016
Smt. Shobha William Jatanna ]
Age 54 years Occ: Services ]
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai ]
Residing at Room No. 3, ]
Simplex Colony, Raikarwadi, ]
Sai Mandir, Penkarpada, ]
Mira-Bhayander, Thane 401107 ].. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
The Copy of this Writ petition to be
]
]
served in the office of the Public ]
Prosecutor of the High Court ]
of Bombay ]
]
2. The Home Department of State ]
of Maharashtra ]
]
3. The Inspector General of Prison, ]
Nasik Jail ]
]
4. DCB CID Mumbai Unit 7 ]
]
5. Senior Inspector, ]
Kashimia Police Station, Dist.Thane ].. Respondents
....
Mr. Manjunath S. Hegde Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. H.J.Dedia A.P.P. for State
....
1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:28:40 :::
jdk 2 6.crwp.2734.16.doc
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 24, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:
1 Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule is made
returnable forthwith.
2 The petitioner is the mother of convict Nilesh William
Jatanna. The petitioner has prayed that her son Nilesh William
Jatanna be released on parole. The convict preferred an
application for parole on 16.11.2015 on the ground of illness of
his father. The said application was rejected by order dated
13.1.2016. Appeal preferred against the said order came to be
dismissed, hence, this petition.
3 The order of rejection shows that in the past, there is
no adverse report against the convict. The reason given by the
convict i.e. his father is ill, is true, however, the application of
the son of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that
the mother had offered to stand as surety for him and she was
working in a printing press at Mira Road, hence, it would not be
2 of 3
jdk 3 6.crwp.2734.16.doc
possible for her to work in the printing press and to keep a
check on her son if he was released on parole. This is the only
reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner for parole.
It is not expected that surety should not work and if the surety
is a male person, he would have attended to his job and kept
the check on the prisoner. Just because the mother of the
convict is working, it does not mean that she cannot keep a
check on her son if he is released on parole.
4 In view of the above, we set aside the order of
rejecting the application for parole and we direct that the
convict i.e. the son of the petitioner i.e. Nilesh William Jatanna
be released on parole for a period of thirty days on the usual
terms and conditions as set out by the jail authorities.
5 Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition is
disposed of accordingly.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. ]
kandarkar
3 of 3
