Yovel S/O. Vijaykumar Gauri ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 8584 Bom

                                                                 cwp1427.17
                                        1


                                        
      IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1427 OF 2017


 Yovel s/o Vijaykumar Gauri (C-200),
 Open Prison, Visapur.
                                 ...PETITIONER 
        VERSUS             

 1) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through Divisional Commissioner,
    Nashik,

 2) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through Superintendent,
    Open Prison, Visapur.   
                                 ...RESPONDENTS

                      ...
    Mr.Rupesh A. Jaiswal Advocate for  Petitioner.
    Mr.D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.
    1 and 2.       
                      ...

               CORAM:   S.S. SHINDE AND
                        MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.] :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

cwp1427.17

heard finally with the consent of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This Petition is filed with following

prayer:

"B] To quash and set aside order of

Resp. No.1 dated 29.07.2017 and thereby

direct Respondent No.1 to release

Petitioner on Parole Leave for 30 days

on execution of Personal (P.R.) Bond

and, (S.B.) Bond with Guarantor."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner invites our attention to the impugned

order and submits that there is no material

placed on record along with the affidavit in reply

filed by the Respondents to substantiate the

reasons assigned in the impugned order that, if

the Petitioner is released on parole there is

cwp1427.17

possibility of threatening to the complainant and

witnesses by him. It is submitted that when on

earlier occasion the Petitioner was released on

furlough, not only he attended the concerned

police station during the said period but also

reported back to the jail within time. Therefore,

according to the learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled to be

released on parole.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P.

appearing for the State relying upon the averments

in the affidavit in reply, submits that as police

report is adverse to the Petitioner, and also the

medical certificate shows that the father of the

Petitioner was not suffering from any serious

ailment, therefore the application of the

Petitioner has been rightly rejected.

5. We have given careful consideration to

the submissions made by the learned counsel

cwp1427.17

appearing for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P.

appearing for the State. We have carefully perused

the reasons assigned by Respondent No.1 in the

impugned order. It appears that without making

reference to any specific material/ statement

either of the complainant or the witnesses, it has

been mentioned in the impugned order that, in case

the Petitioner is released on parole, there is

possibility of threatening to the complainant and

witnesses by him. Even the affidavit in reply

filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, does not

mention about recording of the statement of

complainant or witnesses by the concerned police

officer from the State of Karnataka, who has

submitted/ forwarded report to Respondent No.1.

6. Keeping in view the past/ earlier record

of the Petitioner that when he was released on

furlough, he attended the concerned police station

and reported back to the jail within time, and

also considering the fact that his case is

cwp1427.17

recommended by the Superintendent of the concerned

jail, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner

deserves to be released on parole.

7. In the light of above, the impugned order

is quashed and set aside. We direct the

Respondents to release the Petitioner on parole,

subject to completion of the usual procedural

formalities including furnishing of sureties etc.,

as expeditiously as possible, however in any case

within THREE WEEKS from today.

8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The

Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/NOV17