Allowed

Nasir Khalil Inamdar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2010WP/391/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the court upheld a life convict's writ petition for parole leave of one month. The release was permitted to facilitate the hysterectomy of his wife suffering from pelvic inflammatory disease. The court set aside the order rejecting parole as suffering from a non-application of mind and contradictory observations. Strict daily attendance conditions were imposed to address c

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on parole for one month with daily attendance at the local police station in the area of residence and appropriate surety.

Nasir Khalil Inamdar Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1wp-391-10

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.391/2010

¶7

Nasir Khalil Inamdar vs. The State.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Court�s or Judge�s orders
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court�s
orders or directions and
Registrar�s orders.

¶9

Mrs Indrayani M. Koparkar for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr S.N. Gawade, A.P.P., for the State.

¶11

CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶12

DATE :- 16TH APRIL, 2010.
ORDER:- (Per A.R.Joshi,J)

¶13

1. Heard rival submissions for some time.

¶14

2. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner

¶15

- a life convict, presently lodged at Kalamba Kolhapur
Central Prison, for his release on parole leave for the
period of one month. Reason for release on parole is given
as ailment of his wife who is suffering from PID i.e.,pelvic

¶16

inflammatory disease and needs to undergo hysterectomy
operation. This reason is fortified by the copy of the
medical certificate dated 12.8.2009, annexed as Exhibit-D to

¶17

the writ petition. The order Exhibit B to the writ petition,

¶18

passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division,Pune

¶19

¶20

2wp-391-10

¶21

dated 31.12.2009, rejecting the parole, is impugned in the
present writ petition.

¶22

3.We have perused the reasons given in the said order.
Apparently, it appears to be the case of total non-
application of mind of competent authority � the Divisional
Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune while passing the order
rejecting the parole. Such a non-application of mind is spelt
out from the very contradictory statements mentioned in the
said order. In paragraph No.2 it is stated as under:

¶23

�Wife of the convict is sick. Brother
of the convict is surety. Said surety is
competent. Ailment of the wife of the convict is
not of serious nature. Surety does not appear to
be competent. There is possibility of threat to
the lives of opposite party if the convict is
released on leave.�

¶24

4.Infact, similar such observations are mentioned in

¶25

the third paragraph of the impugned order. Needless to

¶26

mention that contents of the above quoted paragraph are self-
contradictory concerning the surety.

¶27

5.Apart from such non-application of mind there is
another reason for not accepting the reasons given in the
impugned order for rejection of the parole, as to life threat

¶28

perception of the opposite party of the convict. Without
there being any cognate material produced on record such
apprehension appears to be ill founded. Moreover, certain

¶29

3wp-391-10

¶30

¶31

stringent conditions as to attendance with the local police
station daily can be imposed on the petitioner so as to
negate the apprehension as to threat to the rival party.

¶32

6.During the arguments learned A.P.P. submitted that
the medical certificate does not show any fixation of date
for the operation of hysterectomy. The said certificate is

¶33

dated 12.8.2009 and it specifically shows the diagnosis as
pelvic inflammatory disease. It might not have been possible
for the wife of the petitioner to independently fix for the

¶34

date of the operation without the financial and personal
backing from the petitioner and only in the event of the
petitioner being released on parole, such steps could be
taken.

¶35

7.Considering the above observations, in our opinion,
the present writ petition must succeed and hence the order:

¶36

release the petitioner on parole for

¶37

requirements as to acceptance of
appropriatesuretyforthe

¶38

appropriate amount with conditions

¶39

on the petitioner to attend the

¶40

local police station situated in the

¶41

4wp-391-10

¶42

¶43

area where the petitioner would be

¶44

residing during the period of
parole. Such attendance should be
daily.

¶45

(iii) The order passed by the
CompetentAuthorityshallbe
communicated to the petitioner
through the jail authorities and

¶46

after obtaining necessary compliance

¶47

he shall be released on parole for
the period of one month from the

¶48

date of his release.

¶49

With these directions, writ petition is

¶50

disposed of.

¶51

Sd/-Sd/-

Nasir Khalil Inamdar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasir Khalil Inamdar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Vedprakash Dham Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratima Rakesh Upadhyay Vs the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Ravindra v. Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nasir Khalil Inamdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mariam Fatima Gulam Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

K.P. Ramachandran and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.