Bombay High Court
Sheikh Wasim Sheikh Naim (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Divisional ... on 27 February, 2018
Author: R. K. Deshpande
Bench: R. K. Deshpande, M. G. Giratkar
1 jg.cri.wp 1209.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1209 of 2017
Sheikh Wasim Sheikh Naim
Convict No. C-4828, Central Prison,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati. ..... Petitioner
// Versus //
(1) State of Maharashtra through
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati.
(2) The Superintendent of Central
Prison, Amravati, Dist. Amravati. ..... Respondents
Shri A. Y. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. T. H. Udeshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents
CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
Date : 27/2/2018.
Oral Judgment (Per : R. K. Deshpande, J.)
Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment for .....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2018 01:56:28 ::: 2 jg.cri.wp 1209.17.odt conviction of offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A, 201, 316 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Deceased was wife of the petitioner. After conviction on 1-1-2016, it is for the first time that the petitioner applied for grant of parole leave for a period of 30 days on the ground of illness of his mother. Though there is a reference to the order of rejection dated 28-11-2017 passed under Rule 19 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, copy of it is not placed on record. The petitioner was not communicated with the order. Police verification report is placed on record dated 31-1-2017 which by and large is favourable to the petitioner. We therefore find that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the parole leave claimed by the petitioner.
3. No doubt that the petitioner has claimed the relief of direction to the respondents to decide the application for grant of parole leave because according to the petitioner, the order was not communicated. It is urged that in the earlier Criminal Writ Petition No. 628/2016, this Court has directed on 15-10-2016 that the respondents to decide the application within a period of two .....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2018 01:56:28 ::: 3 jg.cri.wp 1209.17.odt months. However, the application was rejected on 28-11-2017 i.e. after period of about a year.
4. Keeping in view the attitude adopted by the respondents, we are constrained to grant parole leave to the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
5. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole leave for a period of 30 days upon such terms and conditions which the respondents shall deem fit and proper to ensure his return in the prison after the expiry of the specified period. We make it clear that if the petitioner fails to return back to the prison within stipulated period, the subsequent claim of the petitioner for furlough leave shall stand forfeited.
6. Fees of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is quantified at Rs. 1500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
...../-
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2018 01:56:28 :::