Zakir Ahmed Sakir Ahmed Khan vs The Superintendent Of Prisons And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1895 Bom

                                                                                      2. cri wp 1141-17.doc


RMA      
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1141 OF 2017


            Zakir Ahmed Shakir Ahmed Khan                                    .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                  .. Respondents

                                                      ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Rahul Arote                   Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar                 APP for the State
                                                      ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                                M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 20, 2017.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

18.12.2014 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said

application was rejected by order dated 6.8.2015. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The

appeal was dismissed by order dated 21.11.2016, hence, this

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

2. cri wp 1141-17.doc

petition.

3. The medical certificate of the wife of the petitioner

shows that she has a problem of cervical erosion and

hysterectomy operation has been advised.

4. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be

rejected on the ground that earlier when the petitioner was

released on parole, he did not report back to the prison in

time and there was delay of 33 days. As far as this ground is

concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner had preferred an application for extension

of parole, however, as he was not intimated that it was

rejected, he surrendered back on his own after 33 days. It

may be stated that the application for extension of parole is

still pending consideration.

5. Looking to the above facts and the fact that the

petitioner had surrendered back to the prison on his own

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

2. cri wp 1141-17.doc

though after a delay of 33 days and looking to the fact that

the conduct of the petitioner in prison is stated to be good,

on humanitarian ground, we are inclined to grant parole to

the petitioner for a period of 30 days on usual terms and

conditions as set out by the Competent Authority.

6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ]                   [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          3 of 3