Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O Motiram Umbarkar, C-5084, ... vs State Of Mah, Thr Divisional ... on 23 July, 2019
Author: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
Bench: P.N. Deshmukh, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 cri.wp.389.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 389/2019
1. Sanjay S/o Motiram Umbarkar,
C-5084
detained in Central Prison, Amravati
.... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati
2. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Amravati
.... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Ms. Radha Mishra, (appointed) Advocate for petitioner
Mr. M.K. Pathan, APP for respondents/State
______________________________________________________________
CORAM:- P.N. DESHMUKH AND
SMT. PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED :- 23/07/2019
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of both the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2019 22:50:09 :::2 cri.wp.389.19
2. The application for parole leave of the petitioner dated 12/12/2018 was rejected by respondent no. 1, vide order dated 12/03/2019 for want of adequate medical papers reflecting serious illness of mother of the petitioner and adverse Police Report. The impugned order is challenged in this petition.
3. We have heard Ms. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pathan, learned A.P.P. for the respondents/State.
4. At the outset, undisputedly, as per Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the petitioner is eligible for parole leave. He satisfies all other conditions for eligibility.
5. As per record, he is convicted for life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 309, 498(A) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Medical Certificate of mother of the petitioner dated 16/11/2018 issued by Dr. A.S. Bhute, reflects the immediate abdomen with excision of tumor with gastrojejunostomy operation for the treatment of Stomach Cancer.
6. Perusal of Police Report does not indicate any specific reason to buttress the apprehension about the possibility of not surrendering on due date, if he is released on parole leave.
7. In our opinion, this is a fit case to grant parole leave to the petitioner. Resultantly, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside. Respondent no. 2 is directed to release the petitioner on parole leave as per Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, on such conditions as may be found suitable to the ::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2019 22:50:09 ::: 3 cri.wp.389.19 Superintendent, Central Jail, Amravati.
8. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
D.S.Baldwa
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2019 22:50:09 :::