Faiyaz Ismail Petkar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2018 Latest Caselaw 1035 Bom

                                                                             18. wp 4576.17.doc

Urmila Ingale

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4576 OF 2017


                 Faiyaz Ismail Petkar
                 C-8471, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik              .. Petitioner
                       Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra                                .. Respondent

                 Mrs.Nasreen S.K.Ayubi, for the Petitioner.
                 Mrs.G.P. Mulekar,, APP  for State.


                                        CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.
                                                 AND M.S.KARNIK, J.

25th JANUARY, 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V :

.K.TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.)

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application on

04/07/2016 for parole on the ground of illness of his father.

The said application was rejected by order dated 03/05/2017.

Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred Appeal. The

Appeal was dismissed by the order dated 17/07/2017, hence,

this Petition.

18. wp 4576.17.doc

3. The application of the petitioner for parole came to

be rejected on the ground that police report is adverse and

medical certificate states that illness of his father may be serious

in future.

4. As far as Appellate order is concerned, it is rejected

on the ground that in the year 2010 when the petitioner was

released on parole, he did not report back to the prison in time.

There was delay of 102 days in reporting back to the prison and

in fact the petitioner was arrested and brought back by police to

the prison. Second ground is that medical report relied upon by

the petitioner which is dated 31/05/2016 is a year old and

hence, when the Appeal was decided on 17/07/2017, it was not

possible to know the seriousness of illness of the father of the

petitioner.

5. As far as first ground of rejection in the Appellate

order is concerned, it is seen that though in the year 2010, when

the petitioner was released on parole, he did not report back in

18. wp 4576.17.doc

prison in time and there was delay of 102 days, however,

thereafter on 20/11/2013 & 27/04/2015, the petitioner was

released on parole and he reported back on due date on his own

to the prison. In addition, on 03/11/2014 and 20/04/2016,

the petitioner was released on furlough and he reported back on

due date on his own to the prison. Thus, it is seen that from the

year 2013 every year, the petitioner has been released either on

parole and furlough and on all occasions, the petitioner has

reported back on his own on the due date to the prison. During

the period from 2013 when the petitioner was released on

parole or furlough, there is no record to show that the petitioner

has come to the adverse notice of the police. Further, it is seen

that conduct of the petitioner in the prison is also satisfactory.

Thus, as far as police report is adverse or that the petitioner had

earlier not reported back to the prison in time is concerned, in

the facts and circumstances, we do not find them to be good

grounds.

6. As far as second ground in both the orders is

18. wp 4576.17.doc

concerned, the medical certificate shows that father of the

petitioner who is as of today 77 years is suffering from urinary

colic and he has past history of Lithotripsy. The Doctor has

suggested to seek an expert's opinion and further management

at higher centre. This certificate is dated 31/05/2016 which

according to the authorities was one year old and hence, could

not be relied upon.

7. Thus, as far as second ground in the Appellate order

is concerned, no doubt the certificate is more than one year old,

however it is seen that Authority themselves took over a year to

decide the Appeal. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the

same. It was not expected that the petitioner would periodically

keep on tendering fresh medical certificates till his application

for parole is decided. The medical certificate clearly shows that

father of the petitioner is suffering from medical problem and it

was required to seek further management at a higher centre. In

this view of the matter, looking to the facts and circumstances of

the case, we are inclined to grant parole to the petitioner. The

18. wp 4576.17.doc

petitioner to be released on parole for 30 days on the usual

terms and conditions as set out by the Competent Authority.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

8. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner

who is in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)