Bombay High Court
Mohd. Faruk Mohd. Yusuf vs Divisional Commissioner, ... on 2 February, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
911-A.cri.wp.655.2020.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.655/2020
1. Mohd. Faruk Mohd. Yusuf,
Aged about 45 years,
R/o. Janewa Chal Committee,
Golibar Panchwa Road,
Shantacruz (East) Mumbai.
(C/4380, Central Prison,
Amravati, District Amravati) ..... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati,
District Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
----- ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. D. Chande, Advocate for petitioner
Ms. T. H. Khan, APP for the respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED : 02/02/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
911-A.cri.wp.655.2020.odt
3] The only ground on which the petitioner's
application for grant of regular parole has been rejected is that
he is a convict in a case involving bomb blast and thus a
prisoner who was involved in terrorist crime. However, if one
goes through the reply filed in the connected matter, wherein
details of the convictions and sentences awarded have been
stated, one is surprised to find that there is not a single offence
of terrorist crime with which the petitioner was charged in this
case and prosecuted for the same and also convicted. All the
convictions and sentences awarded to the petitioner in the so
called bomb blast case were under Indian Penal Code, Arms Act
and other related enactments except for such relevant
enactments as Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act and
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. So, the reply filed by
respondents is contrary to the facts established on record and it
is now clear that the petitioner is not a convict of any terrorist
crime.
4] According to learned APP, there have been
directions issued by the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay in
Sessions Case No.643 of 1998, decided on 09.07.2004 wherein,
this petitioner has been convicted for various offences and
awarded various sentences except for the once pertaining to
911-A.cri.wp.655.2020.odt
terrorist crimes, that the State Government shall not act liberally
while entertaining any request of this petitioner for
commutation or remission of sentences, considering the
seriousness of nature of offence committed by him. It is for this
reason that learned APP submits that the impugned order is
correct and the petitioner be not granted any regular parole.
We would have accepted the contention so raised by the learned
APP, had it been really taken seriously by the State Government
and its officers. On the one hand, Sessions Court at Mumbai
directs the State Government to not act liberally considering the
seriousness of nature of offences committed by the petitioner,
the offices of the State Government show scant respect for this
order and which is evident from releasing the petitioner either
on parole or furlough on numerous earlier occasions. In the
connected matter, the respondents have filed detailed reply
containing a chart of the earlier releases of the petitioner. From
the year 2009 to 2016, the petitioner has been released 11 times
either on parole or furlough. Out of these 11 times, the
petitioner had surrendered himself before the Jail Authorities
belatedly on four occasions. The late surrender ranged from
one day to maximum of 16 days. In spite of such late
surrenders, the offices of the State Government have acted very
911-A.cri.wp.655.2020.odt
promptly in releasing the petitioner at the first available
opportunities on furlough or parole. At that time, they did not
think even for a second that there was a need for them to take
the direction issued by the learned Sessions Judge of Greater
Bombay seriously considering the gravity of the offences
committed by the petitioner. It is therefore, a surprising fact
that now suddenly some realization has downed upon the
officers to take the plea of seriousness of the crime, for opposing
this petition and that too on the grounds not consistent with the
established facts and law.
5] In the circumstances, we find that the reason
stated in the impugned order for denial of regular parole to the
petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair resulting in
denial of a limited right of parole available to the petitioner, by
violating the procedure of law. This is not permissible and
therefore, the impugned order must go.
6] The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order
is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed
to release the petitioner on regular parole, as per his entitlement
and on such conditions as could be imposed upon him in
accordance with a rules, within period of two weeks from the
date of the order.
911-A.cri.wp.655.2020.odt
Rule accordingly in these terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
sarkate
