Bombay High Court
Abdul Zahid Abdul Rashid vs Divisional Commissioner ... on 4 May, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 34-wp-323-21j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 323 OF 2021
Abdul Zahid Abdul Rashid, C-5527,
Aged about 27 years,
R/o. Tarpura, Yavatmal,
Presently Amravati Central Prison,
Amravati. . . . PETITIONER
...V E R S U S..
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Amravati. . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. N. R. Tripathi, A.P. P. for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 04.05.2021
JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 31.12.2020 passed by
the respondent no.1, rejecting application for grant of parole leave for
period of 45 days.
2 34-wp-323-21j.odt
4. The petitioner is a convict for offence punishable under
Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The
petitioner had undergone imprisonment for period of 3 years 9 months
on the date of filing of the application for parole leave. The petitioner
on 17.09.2019 filed the application for grant of parole leave on the
ground that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from serious
illness of heart and has been advised to undergo surgery. The
respondent no. 1 rejected the application for parole leave by order
dated 31.12.2020. The petitioner has therefore challenged the order
dated 31.12.2020 by filing the present petition.
5. This Court on 22.04.2021 issued notice to the respondents.
The respondent no. 1, in pursuance of the notice has filed reply dated
30.04.2021. It has been stated in the said reply that it was necessary
for the petitioner to produce documentary proof of serious illness of
his mother but, the petitioner has failed to produce documents in
support of ground of serious illness of his mother.
6. We have carefully considered the impugned order and reply
filed by the respondent no. 1. On careful perusal of the material on
record, it appears that undisputedly the petitioner has not filed
documents to prove serious illness of his mother on the date of filing of
application before the respondent no. 1. The petitioner has not stated
in the petition that there is no other person in his family, who can take
3 34-wp-323-21j.odt
care of his mother. In absence of such statement, we cannot presume
that the petitioner is the only person, who can take care of his ailing
mother. Even otherwise after the amendment of Rule 19 of the
Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2018,
it was necessary for the petitioner to annex documentary proof as
regards serious illness of his mother. In absence of such documents, it
cannot be said that the respondent no. 1 was not justified in rejecting
the application for parole leave. Hence, there is no merit in the
petition.
7. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
