Bombay High Court
Rahul S/O Babanrao Bhad vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary ... on 26 July, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Valmiki Sa Menezes
18.wp62.2023jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 62 OF 2023
Rahul s/o Babanrao Bhad
Aged about 24 years,
Prisoner No.C/5889, ... Petitioner
Central Jail, Amravati.
District - Amravati.
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Home Department Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Director General of Police,
World Trade Centre, 30th Floor, ... Respondents
Cuff Parade, Mumbai-400005.
3. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
4. Additional Superintendent of Police
(Rural), Amravati, District - Amravati.
5. Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Anjangaon (Surji),
District - Amravati
6. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Jail, Amravati,
District - Amravati
7. Gauhar Hasan,
Incharge Additional Superintendent of Police,
Amravati, District - Amravati .
Mrs. Deepa Charlewar, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner.
Ms. Nandita Tripathi, APP for respondents/State.
Prity PAGE 1 OF 4
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2023 23:43:18 :::
18.wp62.2023jud.odt
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATE : 26.07.2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER: Vinay Joshi, J)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of both the learned counsel for the parties.
(2) The petitioner has been convicted in Sessions Trial
No.33/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life along
with fine. The petitioner is in jail for the period of more than four
years. The petitioner has applied for regular parole on account of
illness of his mother. Respondent No.3 - Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, vide impugned order dated 25.07.2022 has rejected the
application on the ground that in case of release there would be
disturbance of public peace and tranquility, thus, in accordance with
Rule 4 (4) of the Prison Manual, the application has been rejected.
Moreover, it is stated that there are other family members who could
take care of mother as well as the surety is age old.
(3) The petitioner's mother is suffering from illness
Prity PAGE 2 OF 4
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2023 23:43:18 :::
18.wp62.2023jud.odt
which is not in dispute. There may be other relatives, however, it is
petitioner's desire to take care of his mother at crucial period. It
appears that only on account of likelihood a committing cognizable
offence, the application has been rejected.
(4) We have gone through the report filed by
Superintendent of Police, Amravati, which merely says that as per
enquiry made by head constable there are likelihood of causing
disturbance. No material is adduced on the basis of which the police
have formed such opinion. The reply affidavit does not specify the
grounds to believe that there is likelihood of committing breach.
Moreover, respondents have not placed any criminal antecedents of the
petitioner. Besides that once the petitioner was released on furlough
leave who has returned on the due date. The impugned order of
rejection is not based on some material, therefore, it is unsustainable
in the eyes of law. In view of above, we proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
. The impugned order dated 25.07.2022 is hereby
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant parole
Prity PAGE 3 OF 4
18.wp62.2023jud.odt
leave to the petitioner as per entitlement. Necessary consequential
order shall be passed within three weeks from the date of
communication of this order.
(2) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(3) Fees of appointed learned counsel be paid as per
rules.
[VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.] [VINAY JOSHI, J.]
Prity PAGE 4 OF 4
