Yakinali Nasirali Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 4876 Bom

     jdk                                                1                                              13.crwp.2892.16.j.doc


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                                      
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2892 OF 2016




                                                                                              
    Yakinali Nasirali Shaikh                                                        ].. Petitioner

                        Vs.




                                                                                             
    1. The State of Maharashtra                                                     ]
                                                                                    ]
    2. Divisional Commissioner,                                                     ]
       Pune District, Pune                                                          ]
                                                                                    ]




                                                                         
    3. Superintendent of Police,                                                    ]
       Thane Rural, Thane                      ig                                   ]
                                                                                    ]
    4. The Superintendent                                                           ]
       Kolhapur Central Prison                                                      ].. Respondents
                                             
                                  ....
    Mrs. Rohini Dandekar Advocate appointed for Petitioner
    Mr. H.J. Dedia A.P.P. for the State
          

                                  ....
       



                                            CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
                                                    MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 24, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]:

1 This petition is preferred through jail, hence, we

appoint advocate Mrs. Rohini Dandekar who is on the panel of

Advocates of the High Court Legal Services Committee, to

represent the petitioner in this petition.

                                                                                                        1   of  3





      jdk                                                2                                              13.crwp.2892.16.j.doc

    2                   Heard both sides.                          Rule.           By consent, rule is made




                                                                                                                      
    returnable forthwith.




                                                                                              
    3                   The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

    the ground of illness of his wife.                                             The said application was




                                                                                             

rejected by Divisional Commissioner. Being aggrieved thereby,

the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be

dismissed by order dated 16.9.2015, hence, this petition.

4 The rejection order shows that the petitioner had

stated that his brother would stand surety for him, however, on

enquiry with his brother, his brother refused to stand as surety

for the petitioner and he did not give the necessary surety

bond. It was also felt that surety of his brother proposed by

the petitioner would not be able to keep a check on the

petitioner. These were the main reasons for rejecting the

application of the petitioner for parole.

5 The medical certificate of the wife of the petitioner

shows that the wife of the petitioner was having stones in the

kidney and there is also tumor for which she requires

2 of 3

jdk 3 13.crwp.2892.16.j.doc

operation. The statement of the Doctor has also been recorded

which shows that surgery is necessary. The history of the

petitioner shows that twice he was released on furlough i.e. on

17.12.2012 and 16.6.2015. On both these occasions, he

returned back on due dates on his own to the prison.

Thereafter in the year 2013, the petitioner was released on

parole. He reported back to the prison on his own though there

was delay of 13 days.

6 Looking to the past history of the petitioner and the

medical condition of the wife of the petitioner, we are inclined

to release the petitioner on parole. The petitioner to be

released on parole for a period of thirty days on furnishing

surety and on the usual terms and conditions as set out by the

jail authorities.

7 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