Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
V.K. Tahilramani and M.S. Karnik, JJ.
Muzzammil Ataur – Rehman Shaikh —Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No.3774 of 2017
Decided on 5.10.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mrs. A.M.Z. Ansari along with Mrs. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi Advocate
For the State: Mr. Arfan Sait A.P.P.
IMPORTANT POINT
While granting parole, it has to be considered whether the prisoner is a hardened criminal and a threat to society.
Headnote:PAROLE—Petitioner’s application was rejected on ground that he was convicted in Bomb-Blast case and police report was adverse to effect that if released on parole there might be law and order problem—Writ—In bomb blast case 188 people had died and 828 persons were injured—Parole was prayed on ground that mother of petitioner was suffering from Gall bladder stones but doctor’s certificate showed that she came to hospital only in Feb, 2016 for first time—Father of petitioner was also available to take care of his wife—It could not be said that illness of mother of petitioner was serious in nature—Petitioner was involved in more than one offence—Two brothers of petitioner were also involved in Bomb-Blast case and one of them had absconded and had fled the country—Not a fit case to interfere.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
V.K. Tahilramani, J.—Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 5.5.2016 on the ground of illness of his mother. The said application was rejected by order dated 20.3.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 13.6.2017, hence, this petition.
3. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected on the ground that he is convicted in the Railway Bomb Blast case and the police report is adverse which shows that if the petitioner is released on parole, there may be law and order situation.
4. As stated earlier, first ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner for parole is that he has been convicted in the Railway Bomb Blast case. In the Railway Bomb Blast case, 188 people died and 828 persons were injured.
5. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Asfaq Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, Civil Appeal No. 10464 of 2017 arising out of SLP ( C ) No. 16803 of 2017, parole can only be granted in certain situations, one of them being that a member of prisoners family has died or is seriously ill. In the present case, the petitioner has sought parole on the ground that his mother is ill. Reliance is placed on medical certificate dated 4.2.2016 which shows that she is suffering from Cholelithiasis (Gall bladder stones), however, the prosecution has recorded the statement of the Doctor who gave the certificate and he has stated that Ms. Parveen Banu (mother of the petitioner) came to his hospital only on 4.2.2016 for the first time for consultation and neither prior to that nor after that she has come to his hospital. He was requested to give the medical certificate on the ground that the certificate is needed for getting monetary help for the patient from a charitable trust, hence, he gave the said certificate. It is to be noted that another certificate is annexed to the petition which is dated 24.5.2017 issued by Saidee hospital, however, this certificate makes no reference at all to “Gall Bladder Stones”. Thus, we are of the opinion that ground on which the petitioner is seeking parole is not a good or genuine ground.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 8.6.2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1733 of 2017 in the case of Rajendra Kantilal Jagdale Vs. The State of Maharashtra. She placed reliance on this decision to support her contention that if the conduct of the prisoner is good, he is entitled to be released on parole. We have perused the said decision. In the said case, the petitioner therein was released on parole on two occasions and he had reported to the prison on due date on his own on both the occasions. In the said case, the mother of the prisoner was suffering from cancer and she was taking treatment for the same. Looking to this fact and the fact that the conduct of the prisoner in the jail was stated to be good, parole was granted to the said prisoner. However, facts in the present case are entirely different. The father of the petitioner is very much available to take care of his wife i.e. the mother of the petitioner. As stated earlier, the recent medical certificate makes no reference at all to the Gall Bladder Stone. If at all the mother of the petitioner was indeed suffering from Gall Bladder Stone which was of a serious nature, she would have continued her treatment with the same doctor. But for more than 1½ years after the certificate was issued, the mother of the petitioner has not gone back to the said Doctor, which shows that ailment is not serious in nature. As stated earlier, the recent reports do not show any evidence of gall bladder stones.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asfaq (supra) to contend that parole can be granted in certain situations. Even the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 also provide for rel
