Gujarat High Court
Vora vs State on 15 May, 2012
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1505/2012 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1505 of 2012
=====================================
VORA
IMTIYAJBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI THR.YASMINBEN IMTIYAJBHAI VORA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR DIPAK H SINDHI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HK PATEL, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2,
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 15/05/2012
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Present application is filed by the wife of the convict seeking parole leave for a period of 30 days for the purpose of medical treatment and operation of the petitioner's real daughter named Atikaben, aged 12 years, whose operation is stated to have been fixed on 18th May 2012. The Certificate, which is annexed at Page 11 - Annexure 'A', is issued by the Medical Officer of Anand Nagar Palika General Hospital, Anand. The same reads as under:
"This is to certify that Atikaben Imtiyajbhai Vohra is under treatment for last two weeks as she is suffering from chronic pain in abdomen and chronic appendicitis and Anemia. She is advised for operation. Her HB is 6 gms.
If she admits on 15/5/12 she will be given blood transfusion and thereafter operation will be planned on 18/5/12."
1.1 The Certificate does not inspire any confidence because, in the cases of 'Chronic Appendicitis', operation is immediate and there cannot be any scope for planning the operation of 'Appendicitis'. It is stated that when the patient is suffering for last two weeks from chronic pain in abdomen and chronic appendicitis. The Certificate, on the face of it, seems to be not correct.
1.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Patel made available for perusal the jail record of the convict. It is such convict, who brings bad name. He is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 147, 364, 324 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1991 by judgment and order dated 30th November 1991. Though, he was initially arrested on 16th April 1990 till date only 06 years, 10 months and 20 days he has remained in jail. The reason can be found from the facts set out in the jail record. After conviction by judgment and order dated 30th November 1991, he applied for Parole, which was granted but then he absconded. He surrendered late by 1133 days on 2nd May 1995. Thereafter, he approached Honorable the Apex Court for bail, which was granted on 4th May 1995 (during the pendency of appeal). When the appeal came to be dismissed on 11th June 1997, he surrendered to jail. After having surrendered in jail on 11th June 1997, he was released on parole from where, he reported late by one day on 28th August 1997. Again, in the year 2002, he was released on furlough. He onceagain absconded and reported late only after 2366 days. Again, in the year 2011, he was granted parole and he absconded since 8th May 2011 and was lodged back in jail on 11th July 2011, late by 64 days after being arrested by the police.
1.3 The record of the convict is indicative of the fact that he is in habit of absconding not only from parole, furlough but also from SSG Hospital, Vadodara, from the Prisoners' Ward on 9th November 1997. He went out under an excuse of throwing residues to eatables and from there, he absconded for which, an offence was registered against him being C.R. No. I-334/1997 under Section 224 of the IPC. It was only after 1103 days, he was arrested by the police on 18th November 2000 and was lodged back in jail. Taking into consideration the aforesaid track record of the convict, the application is rejected.
1.4 The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the convict has improved and in the month of November 2011, he was granted parole for 14 days to attend the marriage of his daughter. The said parole was extended by three days and later on by 7 days. On the expiry of leave, he had reported in time.
1.5 It is evident from the fact that in the month of May 2011, he was granted 10 days' parole so as to attend his wife who was going to be operated, but then, he again did not report in time and was required to be lodged in jail after being arrested by the police 64 days' late.
2.0 Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Sindhi for the petitioner requested to permit him to withdraw this application. The request was declined.
2.1 The Court is of the opinion that the Court will be failing in its duty if the aforesaid track record is not brought on record.
2.2 The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the jail authorities to be kept in the History Ticket of the convict.
[ Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ] hiren Top