Bombay High Court
Azizuddin Zahuruddin Shaikh @ ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 May, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
6. cri wp 1640-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1640 OF 2017
Azizuddin Zahuruddin Shaikh @ Abdul
Sattar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Mr. Udaynath Tripathi Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : MAY 5, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made
returnable forthwith and the matter is head finally.
3. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
29.6.2015 on the ground of illness of his mother. The
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
6. cri wp 1640-17.doc
application was rejected by order dated 3.9.2015. Being
aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The
appeal was dismissed by order dated 21.11.2016, hence, this
petition.
4. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be
rejected on the ground that he belongs to gang of Dawood
Ibrahim. The second ground is that in the 2014, when the
petitioner was released on parole, he did not report back to
the prison and he was arrested by the police and brought
back to prison. As far as this contention of not reporting
back to the prison in time is concerned, it is seen that in fact,
this Court had extended the parole period by order dated
11.8.2014 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3001 of 2014
(Coram : V.M. Kanade & P.D. Kode, JJ). By the said order, the
parole period was extended for a period of one week. This
order was not known to the authorities, hence, they arrested
the petitioner and brought him back to the prison. Thus, it
cannot be said that the petitioner did not report back in time
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
6. cri wp 1640-17.doc
and hence, he had to be arrested and brought back by the
police to the jail after a delay of six days because the parole
period had already been extended by a period of seven days.
5. The third ground is that the mother of the petitioner is
taking treatment on OPD basis and there are others to take
care of the mother of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that no other family member is residing
with the mother of the petitioner and as far as being treated
on OPD basis is concerned, the operation of the mother of
the petitioner is scheduled on 20.5.2017, hence, it is not
possible to admit her in the hospital so early. The medical
reports clearly show that the mother of the petitioner is
suffering from Hernia which is also seen from the ultra-
sonography reports. This fact is not controverted by the
prosecution that she is suffering from Hernia.
6. The jail record of the petitioner shows that he was
released on parole leave on 13.6.2014 and he reported back
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
6. cri wp 1640-17.doc
to the prison in time. During the period that the petitioner
was on parole, there is no report that the petitioner has
indulged in any illegal or criminal activity. Looking to all
these facts, we are inclined to grant parole to the petitioner
for a period of 30 days.
7. The petitioner to be released on parole for a period of
30 days on the terms and conditions as set out by the
competent authority.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
