Allowed

Sitaram Tukaram Masulkar v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC25 Aug 2010WP/555/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition impugning parole rejection. Despite no evidence of witness threats or absconding risk in trial statement, the Court quashed the order and directed 15-day parole release with caution against offending or threatening witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order rejecting parole application and directed authorities to release petitioner on parole for initially 15 days on terms deemed fit.

Sitaram Tukaram Masulkar Vs the State of Mah — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.555 OF 2010

¶4

Sitaram S/o.Tukaram Masulkar Age-40 years, Occu-Nil, R/o.Nurshinh Pokhari, Tq.Parbhani & Dist.Parbhani

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra,

¶8

Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad

¶9

Superintendent of Police, Parbhani,

¶10

Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS

¶11

Ms,Manjushri Shendge, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for State

¶12

(CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND

¶13

A.V.POTDAR, J.J.)

¶14

DATE : 25/08/2010

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.)

¶16

Rule.

¶17

Rule returnable forthwith.

¶18

¶19

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶20

A communication sent by the petitioner through jail came to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly this Court had appointed Adv.Manjushri Shendge as a counsel to represent the petitioner in this petition before us.

¶21

By this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the respondents rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking his release on parole. The ground urged by the petitioner for his release on parole was that his wife was suffering from DUB (Dis functional uterine bleeding) with anemia. The respondents did not question the correctness of the ailment of the wife of the petitioner, but rejected his application on the ground that the petitioner, if released on parole, was likely to threaten the witnesses, who had been examined against him in the trial and was likely to commit an offence and was also likely to abscond.

¶22

On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply, the aforesaid grounds are re-iterated which were stated for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner. Alongwith the affidavit in reply, a statement of one of the witness is annexed, in which the

¶23

¶24

witness has expressed an apprehension that the petitioner was likely to threaten him and was also likely to cause harm to him under influence of liquor.

¶25

According to us, on the basis of the said material, no authority could have arrive at the subjective finding that the petitioner, if released on parole, was likely to threaten the witnesses, who had been examined against him during the trial. The objective material falls short of the aforesaid inference. We further find that there is no history of threats alleged to have been given by the petitioner to the witnesses during the trial, at least it is not referred to by any of the witnesses. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner, if released on parole, was likely to abscond. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us the application filed by the petitioner ought to have been allowed.

¶26

Resultantly, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the authorities to release the petitioner on parole, initially for a period of 15 days on the terms and conditions which the authorities may deem fit to impose. We further caution the petitioner that in the event he is released on parole, he shall not indulge in committing any offence or shall not threaten the witnesses who had been examined against him during the trial.

¶27

Rule made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel

¶28

¶29

appointed on behalf of the petitioner at Rs.1,500/-.

¶30

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

¶31

khs/AUGUST 2010/cri.w.p.555-10

Sitaram Tukaram Masulkar v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Tukaram Masulkar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk. Sayeeda W/O Sk. Yousuf Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sow Mubinabee Khaja Moinoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jaykumar Bhimrao Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kavita Gautam Kokre Vs State of Mah

The State of Mah Vs Rajendra Prabhakar Bagul and Anr.

Manoj Budha Chavan Vs the State of Mahrashtra