Allowed

Raheman Peermohamad Shaikh v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC10 Jan 2010WP/1034/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal writ petition filed by a life convict challenging a rejection of his furlough application made because his marriage was opposed. The court held that opposition to marriage does not justify denying furlough and ordered release subject to residence and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication rejecting the furlough application was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to be released on furlough subject to conditions of residence at a specific address

Raheman Peermohamad Shaikh Vs the State of Mah — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

Cri.Writ Petition No.1034/2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1034 OF 2010

¶5

Raheman Peermohamad Shaikh, C.No.4364, Open Jail, Paithan, District Aurangabad

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

Special Inspector General (Prisons) and Deputy Inspector General, Prisons, Central Division, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr Ujjwal S.Patil, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Mrs R.K.Ladda, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents

¶11

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ

¶12

DATE : 10^th January 2011

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶14

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶15

A communication sent by the petitioner through jail challenging the decision of the respondents dated 6.10.2010 declining to grant furlough to the petitioner was registered as Criminal Writ Petition. We had accordingly appointed Advocate Mr Ujjwal S.Patil, learned Counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us.

¶16

Cri.Writ Petition No.1034/2010

¶17

¶18

It appears that the petitioner, who is a convict undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and who has undergone 7 years, 6 months and 17 days, applied for his release on furlough. The respondents by the impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that on an earlier occasion when the petitioner had been released on furlough, the petitioner had married one Ruksana Babu Shaikh. It appears that the marriage of the petitioner with Ruksana was not liked by the family members and after the petitioner had surrendered to his furlough, Ruksana began to reside at her parents’ house in Allahabad. The respondents, therefore, apprehended that if the petitioner was released on furlough, the petitioner was either likely to abscond or to threaten and cause alarm harm to the family members of the petitioner and to Ruksana.

¶19

On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply and in the affidavit-in-reply the said contentions are reiterated. According to us this cannot be a ground for refusing or to deny furlough to the petitioner. There is absolute no material on record to suggest that the relations were strained on account of the marriage of the petitioner with Ruksana. There is also no objective material, on the basis of which the authorities can come to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to seek vengeance on account of the opposition of his relatives to the marriage. In any event the fact that the petitioner does not abscond can be taken care of by imposing certain conditions. The apprehension of the prosecution which is two fold can be allayed by putting the petitioner to certain terms and conditions.

¶20

Cri.Writ Petition No.1034/2010

¶21

¶22

We accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned communication and direct the authorities to release the petitioner on furlough. While releasing the petitioner on furlough the respondents may impose condition that the petitioner shall reside within jurisdiction of the local Police Station of Market Yard, Ambedkar Nagar, Opposite Gausiya Masjid, Pune. The respondents may also impose a condition that the petitioner shall refer his attendance daily at the concerned police station either in the morning or in the evening. According to us, imposing of the aforesaid conditions would ensure that the petitioner would not abscond and would not take law in his hand.

¶23

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs.

¶24

We quantify the fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/- (Rs.One thousand five hundred).

¶25

( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.)

¶26

(vvr/1034.2010criwp)

¶27

Cri.Writ Petition No.1034/2010

¶28

Raheman Peermohamad Shaikh v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raheman Peermohamad Shaikh v. the State of Mah

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

Kailas Baliram Sawale Vs the State of Mah

Pandurang S/O.Baliram Sawale Vs the Stae of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Tukaram Bhagwanta Debre and Ors.

Santosh Baburao Bagal and Ors. Vs State of Mah

Jai Dayanand Baba Maschya Vyavasai Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sheikh Anees Sheikh Ibrahim Vs Registrar of Newspapers for India Office of Registrar of Newspapers New Delhi and Ors.