Allowed

Mohammad Mansoor Haji Iqbal Pankar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 May 2009WP/807/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition sought parole for a convicted petitioner to visit his ill mother. The bench quashed the Divisional Commissioner's rejection order, holding that family presence is not absolute and the petitioner should be granted parole.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 12.12.2008 rejecting the parole application was set aside; the petitioner was directed to be released on parole for one month.

Mohammad Mansoor Haji Iqbal Pankar Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 ( 1 )

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.807 OF 2009

¶4

 Mohd.Mansur Haji Iqbal Pankar .. Petitioner
 v/s

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

 Mrs.A.M.Z.Ansari for the Petitioner.

¶7

 Ms.V.R.Bhosale, APP for State.

¶8

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI &
 R.G.KETKAR, JJ.

¶9

 DATE : 5TH MAY, 2009.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

 1. Petitioner is at present lodged in Aurangabad

¶12

 Central Prison. He is convicted by the Special Judge,
 Mumbai for the offence u/s.3(2) of MCOC Act r/w.Section
 120(B) of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I.for 10
 years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.5 lakhs and in
 default R.I.for 3 years. He was also convicted u/s.3(4)
 of the MCOC Act r/w.section 120(B) of the IPC and was
 sentenced to suffer R.I.for 10 years and fine of Rs.5
 lakhs, in default R.I.for 3 years. Petitioner was also
 convicted u/s.411 r/w.120 (B) of the IPC and was
 sentenced to suffer R.I for 2 years and fine of
 Rs.5000/- in default R.I.for 6 months. The substantive
 sentences awarded to the petitioner were to run
 concurrently.

¶13

 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the
 petitioner has undergone sentence of 12 years and 4
 months. According to him the petitioner is undergoing

¶14

 ( 2 )

¶15

 sentence in lieu of fine because he is unable to pay
 fine. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that
 earlier on two occasions the petitioner had gone on
 furlough and he returned to prison on time. It appears
 that the application made by the petitioner for parole
 on the ground that his mother is ill came to be rejected
 by the Divisional Commissioner, Aarangabad. The
 petitioner has challenged the said order in this
 petition.

¶16

 3. The petitioner has annexed to the petition the
 medical record of his mother, which indicates that the
 petitioner’s mother is ill and is operated upon. It
 appears that the Divisional Commissioner has rejected
 the petitioner’s applicationn for parole on the ground
 that there is some other person to take care of
 petitioner’s mother. In the peculiar facts and
 circumstances of this case, in our opinion petitioner
 must be allowed to see his mother. Merely because there
 is some other person to take care of petitioner’s
 mother, the petitioner cannot be denied parole.
 Moreover, as stated by us, petitioner has been in jail
 for more than 12 years, and on two earlier occasions
 when the petitioner was released on furlough he returned
 to the prison on time.

¶17

 4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we set
 aside the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the

¶18

 ( 3 )

¶19

 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. We direct that the
 petitioner Mohd.Mansur Haji Iqbal Pankar be released on
 parole for a period of one month on such terms and
 conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the prison
 authorities. While on parole the petitioner shall
 report to the Jogeshwari Police Station once in a week.
 Petitioner shall surrender to the prison on expiry of
 parole period.

¶20

5. Petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶22

 (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Mohammad Mansoor Haji Iqbal Pankar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Mansoor Haji Iqbal Pankar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Anant Chandru Wake Vs the Superintendent,Kolhapur Central Jail and Ors.

Nimraj Pandharinath Vispute Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Razak Hasan Dokadia and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishram Kama Vanel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Menaka B. Bhatia @Menaka Naren Nathwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Parshuram Kashinath Chavan Vs the Superintendent and Ors.