Bombay High Court
Sujit Vitthal Sutar vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 5 October, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
jdk 1 11.crwp.3223.17.j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3223 OF 2017
Shri. Sujit Vitthal Sutar ]
Aged 36 years Occ: Business ]
Resident of Sutar Tower, Sector 20, ]
Plot No.511, Airoli, Navi Mumbai ]
At present Undergoing the sentence ]
imposed upon him at Nasik Road ]
Central Prison ].. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police ]
Navi Mumbai, Dist. Thane ]
]
2. The Dy. Inspector General of ]
Prisons, Central Region, ]
Aurangabad ]
]
3. Superintendent of Prison, ]
Nashik Road Central Prison, ]
Nashik ]
]
4. The State of Maharashtra ].. Respondents
....
Mr. Rahul Arote Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P. for the State
....
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
SHRI.M.S.KARNIK, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 05, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]:
1 Heard both sides.
1 of 4
jdk 2 11.crwp.3223.17.j.doc
2 The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
16.5.2016 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said
application was rejected by order dated 20.3.2017. Being
aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The
appeal was dismissed by order dated 30.6.2017, hence, this
petition.
3 It is stated that when the petitioner was released on
furlough, he reported back on 13.12.2016, hence, as per
Notification dated 26.8.2016, unless and until the period of six
months has elapsed from the date when the prisoner has
surrendered back to the prison, parole cannot be granted.
4 As stated earlier, on 13.12.2016 the petitioner
surrendered back to the prison after he was released on
furlough and he preferred his application for parole on
16.4.2016, however, it is noticed that the order dismissing the
appeal preferred by the petitioner is based on entirely different
grounds. The appellate order states that the medical
certificate of the mother is more than 11 months old, hence,
it was not possible to know the present stage of health and the
seriousness of her illness. In addition, it is stated that when
the petitioner was released on furlough in the year 2016, he
2 of 4
jdk 3 11.crwp.3223.17.j.doc
was arrested and brought back to the prison by the police 24
days earlier to the day when the petitioner was due to
surrender as he had not followed the condition of reporting to
the police station. As far as this ground is concerned, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the
petitioner was ill and the petitioner was admitted in the
hospital, hence, it was not possible for him to report to the
police station. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that as the petitioner did not report to the police station as per
the conditions on which he was released on furlough, he was
arrested by the police and brought back to the prison. He
further submitted that it was not possible for the petitioner to
report to the police station as the petitioner was ill and was
admitted in the hospital and he had relied on medical
certificate to support his contention. The medical certificate
issued by a Govt. Hospital does support the case of the
petitioner.
5 As stated earlier, the order of rejection and appellate
order are on entirely different grounds. The orders are not in
consonance with each other. Looking to the fact that it is the
case of the petitioner that he was admitted in hospital and
3 of 4
jdk 4 11.crwp.3223.17.j.doc
hence, he could not report to the police station as per the
condition imposed on him when he was released on furlough,
we are of the opinion that both the orders deserve to be set
aside. Hence, both the orders are set aside. The petitioner is
permitted to submit a fresh medical certificate of his mother so
also, his medical certificate and medical papers to support his
contention that he was admitted in the hospital and therefore,
he could not report to the police station. The authorities to take
into consideration all the facts including the latest medical
certificate of the mother of the petitioner and the fact that the
petitioner could not attend the police station as he was ill and
he was admitted in the hospital and after taking into
consideration all these facts, the authorities to decide the
application of the petitioner for parole afresh within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of the fresh medical
certificate.
6 In view of the above, petition is allowed and is
disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[M.S.KARNIK, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
kandarkar
4 of 4
