Bombay High Court
Golu @ Salim Khan Gaffar Khan ... vs Divisional Commissioner ... on 7 September, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Valmiki Sa Menezes
2023:BHC-NAG:13363-DB
1 18-J-WP-459-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2023
PETITIONER : Golu @ Salim Khan Gaffar Khan Pathan
(C-5788), Aged about 27 years,
Occ : NA, R/o Nehru Nagar, Babhulgaon,
Tah. Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Yavatmal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. N. R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- VINAY JOSHI AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATED : 07/09/2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide Judgment and
order dated 27/07/2019 and he is suffering the sentence. It is
submitted that during trial, the petitioner was in jail and thus, he
has undergone the imprisonment for about six years and 50 days.
The petitioner has applied for regular parole on account of illness
of his father. The respondent No.1 - Divisional Commissioner
called the report from the Superintendent of Police and it being
2 18-J-WP-459-23.doc
adverse vide impugned order dated 19/04/2023 declined to grant
regular parole, which is impugned herein.
3. The State has filed reply affidavit stating that as per
Rule 19(3) r/w Rule 4(4) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai
Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the petitioner is not eligible for
furlough on account of adverse police report. Moreover, it is
submitted that petitioner was convicted in the case of murder,
which makes him dis-entitled for relief claimed. The petitioner has
pleaded that in past, thrice he was released on parole and on each
time, he returned on due date. During the said period, no offence
was registered against him nor such grievance is made by the
Authority.
4. We have minutely gone through the impugned order,
which bears the reference of adverse police report dated
20/03/2023. Perusal of the report indicates that In-charge of
Police Station has merely stated that if petitioner is released, then
there is likelihood of breach of peace and he may threaten the
family members of deceased. However, there is no material to
substantiate the said contention. Apparently, on mere speculation,
the petitioner's right of regular parole, if otherwise eligible, cannot
be taken away.
3 18-J-WP-459-23.doc
5. The petitioner has sought parole on account of illness
of his father. The impugned order bears a reference that the
petitioner has produced the relevant medical certificate from the
Government Hospital, Amravati. There is no denial by the
respondents nor the cause canvassed by the petitioner has been
suspected. There is no embargo under the Rules to accord the
benefit of regular parole in case of murder convict.
6. We see no justification for denial of the regular parole,
hence, petition is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 18/04/2023. We direct respondent No.1 to
pass appropriate order of regular parole by imposing suitable
conditions to its own satisfaction. The said order shall be passed
within two weeks from today.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal shall inform
compliance to the Registry of this Court within four weeks from
today.
8. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.] [VINAY JOSHI, J.]
Choulwar
Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/09/2023 15:44:07
