Adam Gafur Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 285 Bom

                                                                                   21. cri wp 688-17.doc


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

                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 688 OF 2017


            Adam Gafur Shaikh                                             .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                               .. Respondents

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. Farhana Shah Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar APP for the State
                                     ...................


                              CORAM        : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                               REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 1, 2017.

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

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

30.4.2015. The said application was rejected by order dated

11.9.2015. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred

an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated

24.6.2016, hence, this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 3



                                                            21. cri wp 688-17.doc

3. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the

ground of illness of his wife. The medical reports which are

not doubted by the respondents show that the wife of the

petitioner is suffering from heart problem i.e rheumatic heart

disease and mitral stenosis and regurgitation.

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

rejected only on the ground that if the petitioner is released

on parole, there would be danger to the life of the witnesses.

This is the sole ground on which the application of the

petitioner for parole was rejected.

5. The jail record of the petitioner shows that from

24.12.2009 to 27.7.2016, the petitioner has been released

on furlough on eight occasions. On seven occasions, he

reported back to the prison in time on his own. Only on

5.12.2011, when he was released on furlough, there was

delay of one day in reporting back to the prison, however, he

reported back to the prison on his own. The petitioner was

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

21. cri wp 688-17.doc

also released on parole on two occasions; on first occasion

i.e on 23.9.2010 to 22.12.2010, he reported back to the

prison on his own one day earlier to the due date of his

surrender. On the second occasion when he was released on

parole, he returned back to the prison on his own, however,

two days late. On none of these occasions that the

petitioner was released either on furlough or parole, there

was complaint by any of the witnesses that they had

received any threat from the petitioner or from anyone on

his behalf or that the petitioner had indulged in any illegal

activities. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to grant

parole to the petitioner.

6. The petitioner be released on parole for a period of 30

days on usual terms and conditions as set out by the

competent authorities.

7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ]               [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]



jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          3 of 3