Bombay High Court
Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 7 August, 2018
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
4. cri wp 3335-18.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3335 OF 2018
Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Mrs. Farhana Shah Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. SONAK, J.
Digitally signed
by Ravindra
Ravindra Mohan
Amberkar
DATE : AUGUST 7, 2018.
Mohan Date:
Amberkar 2018.08.07
18:04:17
+0530
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally by consent of the parties.
3. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 27.3.2018 on the ground of his own marriage. The said jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 6
4. cri wp 3335-18.doc application was rejected by order dated 6.4.2018. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 11.5.2018, hence, this petition.
4. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected on the ground that he was convicted in two cases of TADA i.e in both the cases, he has been convicted for terrorist activities. Thus, mainly in view of Rule 4(13) of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected. Rule 4(13) as it stood then inter alia stated that the prisoners who are convicted for terrorist crimes are not eligible to be granted furlough. Notification dated 26.8.2016 also provides that the prisoners who are not eligible for furlough are also not eligible for parole. Thus, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been convicted in two cases for terrorist activities, his application for parole came to be rejected.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 6
4. cri wp 3335-18.doc
5. Another main reason for not allowing the application of the petitioner for parole is that the Prisons Rules which are applicable in the State of Maharashtra do not provide parole on the ground of the prisoner's own marriage. Rule 19 of the Prisons Rules is as under:-
" 19. When a prisoner may be released on parole.
A prisoner will be released on parole for such period not exceeding thirty days at a time as as the Competent Authority referred to in rule 18 in its discretion may order, in case of serious illness or death of nearest relative such as father, mother, brother, sister, spouse, children or marriage of brother, sister and children of prisoner or pregnant woman prisoner for delivery (except high security risk prisoner) or in the case of natural calamity such as house collapse, floods, fire, earthquake. No such parole or extension of parole shall be granted without obtaining a police report in all cases except in the case of death of his nearest relatives mentioned above:
..................."
Thus, it is seen that the case of the present petitioner does not fall under any of the categories in which the prisoners can be granted parole.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 23.5.2014 in the case of jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 6
4. cri wp 3335-18.doc Abhijit Bharat Babar Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application No. 715 of 2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2013 . She submitted that in the said case, the convict was released on ground of his own marriage. There are two distinguishing factors as far as the order dated 23.5.2014 is concerned. The first is that the Court has not released the convict on parole but on temporary bail in an appeal which was pending before this Court. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, no appeal is pending before this Court, hence, there was no question of granting temporary bail. Moreover, the order dated 23.5.2014 does not show that the applicant therein was convicted for terrorist activities. Thus, the facts of that case are not at all similar to the facts of the present case, hence, the order dated 23.5.2014 would not be of any help to the petitioner.
7. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on another order dated 10.1.2017 of Single Judge of jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 6
4. cri wp 3335-18.doc Delhi High Court in the case of Siddharth Vashistha Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) in W.P. (CRL) 78/2017 & Cri.M.A. 417/2017. She pointed out that in the said case, parole was granted to the petitioner on the ground of his own marriage. We have carefully perused the said decision. It shows that the petitioner was married earlier, however, the marriage was yet to be registered, hence, on this ground, he was granted parole. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out that the rules and notifications relating to parole in the State of NCT Delhi are similar to the parole rules in the State of Maharashtra. Moreover, there is no material to show that the petitioner in the said case was convicted in even one case of terrorist activities. In the present case, as stated earlier, the petitioner has been convicted in two cases under the TADA Act i.e he has been convicted in two cases for terrorist activities. Looking to all these facts and especially the rules in relation to parole in the State of Maharashtra and the other facts and circumstance of this case the decision of the Delhi High Court is of no help to the jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 6
4. cri wp 3335-18.doc petitioner.
8. In view of above, we are not inclined to interfere, hence, Rule is discharged.
[ M.S. SONAK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ] jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 6