Mohammad Mushtaq Moosa Tarani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9587 Bom

 jdk                                               1                                              13.crwp.2208.17.j.doc



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     CRIMINAL W.P.NO. 2208 OF 2017

Mohammad Mushtaq Moosa
Tarani                                                                           .. Petitioner

                    Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                                  .. Respondents


                              ....
Mrs. A.M.Z. Ansari along with Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate
for Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
                              ....


                                        CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.
                                                AND M.S.KARNIK, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 13, 2017

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

1                   Heard both sides.



2                   The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

29.5.2016 on the ground of illness of his wife.                                                                 The said

application was rejected by order dated 28.10.2016. Being

aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The

appeal was dismissed by order dated 14.2.2017, hence, this

petition.

                                                                                                    1   of  3





  jdk                                               2                                              13.crwp.2208.17.j.doc



3                   It is seen that the appeal is dismissed on two grounds

i.e. as the petitioner has been convicted in a Bomb Blast case,

in view of the Notification dated 26.8.2016, he cannot be

granted parole and the second ground is that the medical

certificate relied upon by the prosecution which shows that his

wife has a medical problem, is dated 9.5.2016, hence, on

14.2.2017, it was not possible to know the current state of the

health of the wife of the petitioner and as the petitioner has not

produced any recent medical certificate of the wife, the

seriousness of the illness could not be made out. As far as

second ground is concerned, the petitioner has annexed a

medical certificate dated 9.5.2016 along with his application

which was preferred on 29.5.2016. As the matter was pending

before the authorities, the petitioner had no way of knowing

when the application would be decided hence, he did not furnish

any fresh medical certificate. The petitioner cannot be blamed

for not submitting a fresh medical certificate.

4 We have reproduced the two grounds on which the

appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed, however, we find

2 of 3

jdk 3 13.crwp.2208.17.j.doc

that the appeal of the petitioner was rejected on entirely

different grounds than the grounds on which the application of

the petitioner for parole was rejected. The grounds on which his

application was rejected and appeal was dismissed are entirely

different grounds and are not at all in consonance with each

other. In this view of the matter, both the orders dated

28.10.2016 and 14.2.2017 are set aside. The application of the

petitioner dated 29.5.2016 to be considered afresh along with

latest medical certificate which will be submitted by the

petitioner to the concerned authority. Rule is made absolute

accordingly. Petition is disposed of.

5 Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

            M.S.KARNIK, J.                                                                            ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

kandarkar




                                                                                                                3   of  3