Bombay High Court
Rahimtulla @ Papa Sayyadali ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
11-WP-3861-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3861 OF 2016
RAHIMTULLA @ PAPA SAYYADALI SHEIKH )
Age - 61 years, Presently lodged at -C/579, )
Yerwada Open District Prison, Class -I, )
Pune - 411 006. )...PETITIONER
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
ig )...RESPONDENT
Ms.Rohini Dandekar, Advocate Appointed for the Petitioner.
Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
A. M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : 5th DECEMBER 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
1 Heard both sides.
2 The petitioner preferred an application dated 29th May
2013 for parole on the ground of illness of his wife. The said
avk 1/4
11-WP-3861-2016.doc
application was rejected, against which an appeal was preferred.
The said appeal was allowed by order dated 15 th June 2015.
Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was released on parole
on 30th June 2015, for a period of 30 days. The petitioner had to
surrender on 30th July 2015. The petitioner applied for extension
of parole on 7th July 2015. This application for extension of parole
was rejected by order dated 3rd August 2015. Hence, this petition.
The petitioner has prayed that his parole be extended by a period
of 14 days.
3 The application of the petitioner for parole came to be
rejected on the ground that the reason for extension of parole is
not found appropriate. However, it is seen that the petitioner
while preferring the application for extension of parole has
annexed medical certificate dated 5th July 2015 which shows that
his wife has been advised surgery of spine. The genuineness of
this medical certificate is not doubted by the authorities. It is
further seen that the application for extension of parole was made
within time and it is supported by a medical certificate, the
avk 2/4
11-WP-3861-2016.doc
genuineness of which, as stated earlier, is not doubted. The
petition shows that the petitioner was informed of rejection of his
application for extension of parole on 12th August 2015 and he
surrendered to prison on the very next day. Though the
application for extension of parole was rejected on 3 rd August
2015 by the State Government, it was communicated to Yerwada
Central Prison on 13th August 2015 and the petitioner surrendered
immediately thereafter.
4 As the application of the petitioner for extension of
parole was pending, he did not surrender to the authority as he
must have been under an impression that the parole would be
extended. However, as soon as it was rejected, the petitioner
immediately surrendered back to prison.
5 Looking to all the above facts, we are inclined to grant
extension of parole by a period of 14 days. Any punishment
imposed on account of overstay of 14 days, is set aside.
6 Rule is made absolute in above terms.
avk 3/4
11-WP-3861-2016.doc
7 Office to communicate this order to the petitioner, who
is in Yerwada Open District Prison.
(A. M. BADAR, J.) (V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
avk 4/4
