Magdum Kasam Sayyad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8246 Bom

                                                                          501. wp 4418.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4418 OF 2017

                 Magdum Kasam Sayyad                            .. Petitioner
                      Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra and ors.               .. Respondents 

                 Mr.Satyavrat Joshi i/b Mr.Sumant Deshpande, for the Petitioner.
                 Mr. Deepak Thakare, PP a/w Mr.Arfan Saith, APP  for State.


                                               CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                                              M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

30th OCTOBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT.

V .K.TAHILRAMANI ) :

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith

and the matter is heard finally.

3. The petitioner has prayed that he may be permitted

to attend the marriage of one Saddique Abbas Ali Sayyad

between 02/11/2017 to 04/11/2017.

501. wp 4418.17.doc

4. The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment at

Yerwada Central Prison as he has convicted under Sections 302,

307 read with 149 of IPC. The appeal preferred by the

petitioner before this Court came to be dismissed. It is stated

that SLP has also been dismissed. In such case, this Court

cannot even grant temporary bail to the petitioner to attend the

marriage.

5. According to the petitioner, Saddique Abbas Ali

Sayyad is his nephew and the petitioner desires to attend the

marriage of his nephew. In such case, the appropriate course for

the petitioner would be to prefer an application for parole on

the ground of marriage of his close relative. Any such prayer

cannot be directly entertained by this Court. The petitioner had

an appropriate remedy and he ought to have availed of the

same. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition. Rule

is discharged.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)