Deepak S/O Dalvirsingh Sisodiya vs State Of Mah. Thr. Divisional ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16641 Bom

                                      1                                  CWP 793.21.odt




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.793 OF 2021


     Deepak s/o Dalvirsingh Sisodiya,
     Aged 40 (C-5304), presently at
     Central Prison, Amravati, District-
     Amravati.                                         ..        Petitioner


                     .. Versus.


     1]    State of Maharashtra, through
           Divisional Commissioner,
           Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

     2] Superintendent of Central Prison,
        Amravati, Dist. Amravati.                      ..    Respondents


                 ..........
     Mr. A.Y. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner,
     Ms. N.R. Tripathi, APP for the respondents.
                 ..........


                     Coram:       M.S. Sonak and
                                  Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ.

                     Date:        01.12.2021.



     JUDGMENT (PER: M. S. SONAK, J.)

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

                                       2                                CWP 793.21.odt



  2.              Rule.        The rule is made returnable forthwith at the

request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order by

which parole has been denied to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner had sought parole on the ground of the

illness of his father, who was stated to be 85 years old. The

impugned order does not doubt the veracity of the petitioner's

contention about the ill-health of his father. The parole has been

denied only on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted in

offenses including those that had attracted the provisions of the

M.C.O.C. Act.

5. The return filed vaguely states that if the petitioner is

released on parole, there is a possibility of disturbance of peace and

tranquility, and therefore the police authority does not recommend

the release of the petitioner on parole leave.

6. Firstly, we are not quite satisfied with the police report and

the vague statement made therein. Secondly, Mr. Sharma, learned

counsel for the applicant, has pointed out that the co-accused Anil

3 CWP 793.21.odt

Bhanudas Waghmode had also applied for parole and was released

by this Court vide order dated 2.2.2021 in Criminal Writ Petition

No.649/2020 by overruling similar objections raised by the

Respondents.

7. According to us, this circumstance of the release of the

co-accused has not been taken into consideration while denying

parole to the petitioner herein. The authorities are required to

consider this circumstance. The authorities are also required to

consider the conduct of the petitioner. Mr. Sharma submitted that

the petitioner was released on bail during trial and he had complied

with the conditions of the bail.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned

order and direct the concerned authorities to reconsider the

petitioner's application for parole. This time, the concerned

authorities will apply their mind to all the relevant considerations

including the release of the co-accused Anil Waghmode on parole in

pursuance of the judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition

No.649/2020.

9. Since it is pointed that the petitioner's father is over 85

years of age, we direct the authorities to dispose of the petitioner's

4 CWP 793.21.odt

application for parole afresh within 15 days from today. The

decision should be communicated to the petitioner within this period

of 15 days without fail.

10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall

be no order for costs. The concerned authorities should act on the

authenticated copy of this order.

(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)

Gulande