Bhimrao S/O Maroti Awathare vs State Of Mah. Thr. Divisional ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17985 Bom

wp 829.21.0dt.                                                                                                  1/3


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

                            Criminal Writ Petition No.829/2021


        Bhimrao Maroti Awathare,
        Aged 60 (C-5780) presently Central Prison Amravati
        Dist. Amravati.                                                                        ... Petitioner


                                                        Versus

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

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

***********************************************************************************************************
                  Mr. N.A. Badar, Adv for applicant.
                  Mrs. Tripathi, APP for State.
************************************************************************************************************




                             CORAM : M.S. SONAK & PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATE : 23-12-2021.

Oral Judgment (Per-M.S. Sonak, J.)

Heard Mr. Badar learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs

Tripathi learned APP for the State.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and

with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated

30-08-2021 denying him regular parole based on the adverse Police Report.

4. In the first place we ascertained that whether the petitioner is

eligible for parole. The learned Counsel for the parties have pointed out

that the petitioner has completed more than 4 years of incarceration and

wp 829.21.0dt. 2/3

therefore the petitioner is eligible for parole.

5. In this case the rejection is on the ground of adverse Police

Report. We have examined the report but we find that there are no details

indicated in support of Adverse Police Report. The report is vague and

general in nature and does not inspire much confidence. The aspect that

the petitioner is almost 60 years old and parole has been applied for to

attend his wifes illness has not at all been considered in this case. The

petitioner has placed before the authorities medical certificate to establish

that his wife was suffering from Pelvic Inflammatory disease for which

Hysterectomy was advised. According to us all these materials were

required to be considered. The authorities were also required to consider

the purpose for making provisions under the Rules for release of the

prisoners on parole. Since all these aspects have not been considered in

this case, we think that the impugned order should be quashed and the

petitioner should be granted parole for a period of 45 days as prayed for

by the applicant. No doubt the authorizes will be entitled to impose

conditions while granting a parole to ensure that the petitioner returned to

the prison to suffer sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. Such

conditions should also not been too harsh so as to render a relief now

granted by him almost infructuous.

6. For the aforesaid we quash and set aside the order dated

30-08-2021 and direct the respondents, the petitioner be granted parole

wp 829.21.0dt. 3/3

for a period of 45 days subject to such terms and conditions as the prison

authorities may appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Necessary

orders in this regard may be made within one week from the date of

communication of this order.

7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

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

Deshmukh