Bombay High Court
Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 January, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Makarand Subhash Karnik
28. WPST 3094.20.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 3094 OF 2020
Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh
incarcerated at Nagar Central Jail,
currently lodged at Thane Prison
formerly residing at 33/T/2.
Shivaji Nagar, Govandi West, Mumbai ....Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Superintendent,
Nagpur Central Prison ..... Respondents
Ms.Kritika Agarwal, for the Petitioner.
Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent - State.
Mr.Prashant Mohite, PI ATS present.
CORAM :
S. S. SHINDE &
M. S. KARNIK, JJ
RESERVED ON : 07th JANUARY, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th JANUARY, 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.)
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
fnally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2. By this Petition fled under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges an order dated
19/09/2020 passed by the Superintendent Nagpur, Central
1/6
28. WPST 3094.20.doc
Prison, Nagpur rejecting the Petitioner's request for grant of
death parole.
3. The Petitioner had made an application for parole on
the ground that his brother passed away on 16/09/2020.
Thereafter even the Petitioner's father passed away on
05/10/2020. The Petitioner wants to pay last respect to his
deceased father and brother and therefore requests for grant of
parole.
4. The Petitioner was arrested on 08/09/2006 in
connection with MCOC Special Case No. 21 of 2006. The
Petitioner was convicted on 30/09/2015 for the ofences
punishable under sections 121A, 122, 123, r/w 120B of IPC and
under sections 3(1)(i) and (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act and
under sections 10(a)(i), 13(1), 16 and 20 of UA(P)A and under
section 9B(2), 6 r/2 4(ii) of the Explosive Substance Act and
sentenced to life imprisonment.
5. The report submitted in this Court by learned APP
states that the following cases are registered against the
Petitioner - prisoner.
2/6
28. WPST 3094.20.doc
Sr.No. Court Under Section Remarks
01 Metropolitan C.R.No. 1030/2013 Pending. As per learned
Magistrate, Mumbai trial court, the case has
proceed, three witnesses
have been examined by
the prosecution and now
be kept further evidence
on 4-1-2021. The copy
of letter dated 24-12-20
annexed herewith as
Mark R-I
02 City Session Court, MCOC Case No. Pending.
Gr.Bombay 23/2006.
6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submitted that on humanitarian ground, the Petitioner may be
released on death parole as he has lost his brother and father
during the span of one month. She has relied upon the decision
of this Court in the case of 1Mohammad Moin s/o. Faridullah
Qureshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. and other
connected Writ Petitions. She submits that even convicts in
bomb blast cases had been released on furlough.
7. In our opinion, the decision rendered by this Court in
the case of Mohammad Moin (supra) is not of any assistance to
the Petitioner. No doubt, the Petitioners therein were the
convicts of the Mumbai bomb blast case. The narration of the
facts would reveals that the Petitioners therein had undergone
1 Cri. WP 33/2019 Bench at Aurangabad
3/6
28. WPST 3094.20.doc
over 24 years of imprisonment and had been released on
furlough/parole number of times. It is further recorded that they
had returned to jail on the dates on which their furlough period
was over. This Court further observed that it is not the case of
the Respondents that the Petitioners have ever jumped the
furlough/parole or breached any of the conditions imposed for
their such release.
8. In the present case, the Petitioner has applied for
death parole. Learned APP took a strong objection for the release
of the Petitioner on death parole leave as he has been convicted
for serious ofences including MCOC and that even another case
under MCOC is pending against the Petitioner. In the facts of the
present case, considering the adverse police report, in our
opinion, interest of justice would be sub-served if the Petitioner
is released on death parole for a period of 4 days but under
escort.
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner is very poor and is not in a position to bear the escort
charges.
4/6
28. WPST 3094.20.doc
10. We do not accede to the request of the Petitioner to
waive the escort charges. It is however open for the Petitioner to
make an application to the competent authority from exempting
him from paying escort charges. In the event of the Petitioner
making such application, we request competent authority to
consider the same sympathetically and in accordance with rules.
11. We make it clear that the observations made by us
are limited to considering the case of the Petitioner for grant of
death parole and will have no bearing on any application made
for regular parole or furlough in future. In the event, any other
application for release on parole/ furlough is made by the
Petitioner, the same shall be considered on its own merits
without being infuenced by any observations made in this order.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 19/09/2020 passed by the
Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur is set aside.
(iii) The Petitioner be released on death parole for a period
of 4 days under escort on such terms and conditions
28. WPST 3094.20.doc
imposed by the competent authority.
(iv) In the event an application is made by the Petitioner
for waiving of escort charges, the same be considered
sympathetically in accordance with existing Rules.
12. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is partly made
absolute in the above terms.
(M.S.KARNIK, J. ) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
Urmila Digitally signed
by Urmila P.
Ingle
P. Date:
2021.01.29
Ingle 18:54:36 +0530
