Mohd. Shareef Shabbir Ahmed (In ... vs Jail Superintendent Amravati ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9005 Bom

                                               1                                        jg.cri.w.p.1056.17.odt


                 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1056 OF 2017

Mohd Shareef Shabbir Ahmed, 
Convict No. C/4915, 
Presently at Central Prison, Amravati.                                                        ... Petitioner

             VERSUS

Jail Superintendent, 
Amravati Central Jail, Amravati.                                                           ... Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the petitioner
Smt. N. R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND
                                                                M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

                                                   DATE    :  23/11/2017.

Oral Judgment                 (Per : R. K. Deshpande, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner is the prisoner suffering imprisonment for

14 years for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-AA) of Arms

Act and 5(b) of Explosives Substance Act, 25(1-A), 25(1-B), (a), 26 read

with Section 7 of the Arms Act. The real sister of the petitioner expired

on 20-10-2017 and hence, he sought parole leave which has been

2 jg.cri.w.p.1056.17.odt

rejected.

3. As per Rule 18(2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and

Parole) Rules, 1959, the competent authority to release the convict/

prisoner on parole for a period of not exceeding 15 days is the

Superintendent of Prison in case of death of close relation i.e. father,

mother, brother, sister, spouse or children of the prisoner. It cannot

therefore be accepted that the competent authority is the Divisional

Commissioner as is urged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4. The reason given for parole is not in dispute which is

admitted in the reply filed by the respondent and we do not find,

therefore, any reason to refuse to grant parole leave to the petitioner.

In view of the above, the order dated 7/8 th November, 2017 rejecting

the application for death parole is hereby quashed and set aside. The

petitioner shall be entitled to parole leave for not exceeding 7 days on

such terms and conditions as the Superintendent of Jail may think fit

and proper.

5. The petitioner can be released by 27 th November, 2017 so

that he would be able to attend 14th day rituals.

3 jg.cri.w.p.1056.17.odt

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor to communicate this

order.

                        JUDGE                                         JUDGE



wasnik