Bombay High Court
Abdul Rajik Sheikh Abdul Nabi ... vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur ... on 4 August, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 WP462.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 462/2017
Petitioner : Abdul Rajik Sheikh Abdul Nabi Sheikh
R/o Dhumne Layout, Thutra Road,
Gadchandur, Tah. Korpana,
Dist. Chandrapur
Versus
Respondents : 1. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
2. Superintendent (Jail), Central Jail,
Nagpur
3. State of Maharashtra, Through P.S
Rajura Virur, Dist. Chandrapur
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms. Rakhi Sarkar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. A.M.Deshpande,A.P.P for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : P.B.Varale and
M.G.Giratkar, JJ.
DATE : 04/08.201
.
Judgment : ( Per Murlidhar G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the
2 WP462.2017
impugned order dated 25/03/2017 by which his application for
Parole not considered.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is in jail for about
nine years. The mother of the petitioner is suffering from serious heart
problem since 2011. She is getting treatment from Dr. Aziz Khan of
Crescent Hospital and Heart Center, Nagpur. Dr. Aziz Khan certified
that she is suffering from Dysplastic tricuspid, valve organic TR
Moderate PH and therefore advised for operation immediately. A copy
of the certificate issued by Dr. Aziz Khan is placed on record at
Annexure-A. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner is living
with the wife of petitioner, therefore, the petitioner prayed for Parole
leave of 10 days. Respondent authority wrongly rejected the
application on the ground that the appeal of petitioner against
conviction is pending. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner
requires urgent medical treatment.
4. The application is strongly opposed by the respondent.
It is submitted that the petitioner is convicted for the offences
punishable under sections 302, 120-B, 109, 364 of Indian Penal Code.
As per the report submitted by the Superintendent, Central Jail,
Nagpur dated 16/03/2017, it was found that the petitioner is
3 WP462.2017
undergoing imprisonment and his appeal against conviction is
pending. As per the government notification dated 26/08/2016,
Rule- 4 (b) (11), it is not permitted that the prisoners be released on
furlough leave whose appeal against their conviction in High Court is
pending and if bail is not granted by the Court. Therefore, the
application is rightly rejected by the respondent.
5. Learned counsel Ms. Rakhi Sarkar pointed out to us the
certificate issued by the doctor and submitted that the mother of the
petitioner requires urgent medical treatment. Learned counsel has
submitted that in the same situation, this Court granted relief of
parole/furlough to the prisoners, whose appeals are pending against
their conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner at last, prayed to
allow the petition.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents submitted that as per the Government notification dated
26/08/2016, petitioner is not entitled for furlough/parole leave
because his appeal is pending before the High Court.
7. This Court has granted relief of furlough/parole leave to
the convicts whose appeals are pending against their judgment of
4 WP462.2017
conviction. There is no other reason for the respondents to refuse the
parole leave of the petitioner except the reason that his appeal is
pending before the High Court against his conviction.
8. The Certificates filed on record issued by the Doctor clearly
shows that the mother of the petitioner requires urgent medical
treatment. As per the submission of the petitioner, he is the only
person to look after his mother, therefore, he applied for parole leave.
9. This Court has granted furlough/parole leave to the
convicts whose appeals are pending against their judgment of
conviction. The case of the petitioner is similar to other convicts who
were released on furlough/parole leave though their appeals were
pending against their judgment of conviction. Hence, on the ground
of parity, the petitioner is also entitled for grant of parole leave.
Therefore, we allow the petition in terms of the prayer clause, with a
direction to the respondents to release the petitioner on parole leave
on usual conditions and in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
A.P. Ansari
