Gujarat High Court
Musrafkhan vs State on 30 September, 2010
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1904/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1904 of 2010
=========================================================
MUSRAFKHAN
GOREKHAN PATHAN-THRO' FARAJKHAN MUSRAFKHAN PATHAN - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
HEMANT B RAVAL for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MS ML SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 30/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Ms. M.L.Shah, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present application, it is taken up for hearing today.
2. Present application has been filed by the applicant for grant of parole for a period of 30 days on the ground of repairing of the house.
3. The applicant is charged with having committed offence under the provisions of TADA Act in TADA Case No. 8 of 1993 and 144 of 1993. He has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment not less than 20 years. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Court have been confirmed in the appeal before the High Court. Further, it transpires that the appeal preferred by the applicant before the Hon'ble Apex Court has been dismissed. The applicant has also filed Special Criminal Application No. 1306 of 2010 which came to be withdrawn on 29.07.2010. Thereafter, he made an application before the jail authority in September-2010 which came to be rejected and therefore the present application has been preferred.
4. The said order rejecting the application for grant of parole by the jail authority is at Annexure-C wherein also the reference is made of the cases in which he has been involved and the apprehension is voiced for maintenance of law and order as well as possibility of his getting involved in similar offence.
5. Having considered the provisions of the TADA Act as well as the gravity of the offence and also the ground for which he has claimed parole, the present application deserves to be rejected and accordingly stands rejected. Rule discharged.
(RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J) jani Top