Bombay High Court
Abdul Asaroddin Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 September, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
2. cri wp 3010-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3010 OF 2016
Abdul Asaroddin Shaikh .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...................
Appearances
Ms. Rohini Dandekar Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
4.5.2015 on the ground of illness of his wife. The wife of the
petitioner was in the State of U.P., hence, report was called
from the State of U.P.. This took some time. After the report
was received, it along with other facts and circumstances
was considered and the application of the petitioner was
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3
2. cri wp 3010-16.doc
rejected by order dated 15.2.2016. Being aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be
dismissed by order dated 10.06.2016.
3. The appeal of the petitioner regarding parole was
rejected on the ground that the medical certificate of the
wife of the petitioner was dated 8.4.2015 i.e it was one year
old certificate and from the said certificate, the seriousness
and the present condition of the health of the wife of the
petitioner could not be made out. Moreover, the certificate
did not have signature of the Doctor or seal. However, we
find that the said certificate does have the signature of the
Doctor and the said certificate is on the letterhead of the
clinic. In addition, the petitioner has annexed the latest
medical certificate of the wife of the petitioner dated
8.4.2016 which shows that she has prolapse of uterus, PID
and fibroid in uterus, hence, she has been advised surgery.
The genuineness of this certificate has not been assailed.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3
2. cri wp 3010-16.doc
4. Further it is seen that the petitioner was earlier
released on furlough on 16.3.2015. The jail chart of the
petitioner shows that the petitioner reported back in time to
the prison on his own. The jail chart also shows that the
conduct of the petitioner in the prison is satisfactory.
Looking to all these facts we are inclined to release the
petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days on the usual
terms and conditions as set out by the Competent Authority.
5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
6. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who
is in Nasik Road Central Prison.
7. Fees to be paid to the appointed Advocate are
quantified at Rs. 2,500/-.
[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3
