Bombay High Court
Rohini Rajendra Mudliyar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 30 January, 2018
901. Cri. wp 377-18.doc
DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 377 OF 2018
Rohini Rajendra Mudliyar
Aged 20 years, Occ. Housewife,
residing at Room No. 1/95,
V.A.R. Labour Colony, Mandala
Village, Near Mahila Devi Mandir,
Mankurd East, Mumbai 400 088 ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Maharashtra
through Govt. Pleader High Court,
Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent,
Nasik Central Jail, Nasik,
Maharashtra State.
3. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nasik Division, Maharashtra State. ...Respondents
...........
Ms. Heena M.A. i/by Mr. Shaikh Shafi Ahmed, Advocate the
petitioner.
Mr. Arfan Sait, A.P.P. - State.
...........
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.
AND M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : 30th JANUARY, 2018.
901. Cri. wp 377-18.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.) :-
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This petition has been preferred by the daughter of
the convict. The convict is in Nashik Road Central Prison,
Nashik. In this petition, it is stated that the petitioner is getting
married on 29th January, 2018 i.e. yesterday and hence, her
father may be released on parole to attend the marriage. The
marriage was to take place in a temple at Titwala in Kalyan. It
may be stated that this matter was mentioned at 3.00 p.m.
yesterday and this petition was got circulated for today.
3. Learned APP has handed over the report of the
Senior Police Inspector of Trombay Police Station, Mumbai,
where FIR in which the father of the petitioner is concerned was
registered. The said report shows that the marriage has already
taken place. In this view of the matter, this petition would be
infructuous.
901. Cri. wp 377-18.doc
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the reception is to be held tomorrow, hence, the father be
released on parole to attend the reception. However, it is noticed
that there is no averment in the petition in relation to the fact
that reception is to be held tomorrow nor there is any invitation
card to support the same. In this view of the matter, it is difficult
to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Moreover, the learned
APP stated that the father of the petitioner is convicted in a case
of human trafficking i.e. 370-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Notification dated 26/8/2016 which relates to release of
prisoner on parole or furlough states that a prisoner who is
involved in human trafficking would not be eligible for release
on parole or furlough. In this view of the matter, no case is made
out for interference. The Writ Petition is rejected.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
