CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Yakinali Nasirali Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Bombay High Court · Decided on 24 August 2016 · Citation: (2017) ALLMRCri 1116 : (2017) 3 MhLJCrl 112

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Tahilramani and Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 — Rule 19
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2892 of 2016
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 356 words

Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.(Oral)—This petition is preferred through jail, hence, we appoint advocate Mrs. Rohini Dandekar who is on the panel of Advocates of the High Court Legal Services Committee, to represent the petitioner in this petition.

2.

Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

3.

The petitioner preferred an application for parole on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was rejected by Divisional Commissioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 16.9.2015, hence, this petition.

4.

The rejection order shows that the petitioner had stated that his brother would stand surety for him, however, on enquiry with his brother, his brother refused to stand as surety for the petitioner and he did not give the necessary surety bond. It was also felt that surety of his brother proposed by the petitioner would not be able to keep a check on the petitioner. These were the main reasons for rejecting the application of the petitioner for parole.

5.

The medical certificate of the wife of the petitioner shows that the wife of the petitioner was having stones in the kidney and there is also tumour for which she requires operation. The statement of the Doctor has also been recorded which shows that surgery is necessary. The history of the petitioner shows that twice he was released on furlough i.e. on 17.12.2012 and 16.6.2015. On both these occasions, he returned back on due dates on his own to the prison. Thereafter in the year 2013, the petitioner was released on parole. He reported back to the prison on his own though there was delay of 13 days.

6.

Looking to the past history of the petitioner and the medical condition of the wife of the petitioner, we are inclined to release the petitioner on parole. The petitioner to be released on parole for a period of thirty days on furnishing surety and on the usual terms and conditions as set out by the jail authorities.

7.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition is disposed of accordingly.