Disposed

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Aug 2015WP/1008/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, restraining itself from expressing an opinion on merits, directed the Divisional Commissioner to take a final decision on the petitioner's parole application within three days due to his mother's death, citing Rule 18(2) of the 1959 Rules.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Divisional Commissioner to decide the pending parole application expeditiously by August 13, 2015, in light of Rule 18(2) of the 1959 Rules.

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

cwp1008.15

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1008 OF 2015

¶6

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh,
Age-54 years, Occu:Business,
Resident of Chirag Compound,
Awapada, Nariyal Bag, Palnagar,
Pathanwadi, (Shahin Art),
Malad (E), Mumbai,
(At present Central Prison,
Aurangabad.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶10

2) Superintendent,
 Aurangabad Central Prison,
 Aurangabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

 Mr.R.A. Jaiswal Advocate h/f. Mr. Nilesh
 S. Ghanekar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.A.V. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Respondents.
 ...

¶14

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
 DATE : 7TH AUGUST, 2015

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1. Not on Board. Taken on Board.

¶17

cwp1008.15

¶18

¶19

2.Affidavit in reply is filed by one Vinod
Vishnupanth Shedkar, working as Superintendent,
Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad. In Para 6
of the said affidavit, it is stated that, taking
into consideration the fact that mother of the
Petitioner died, two days parole was granted on
humanitarian ground. It is further stated that
present Petitioner has also filed one another
application dated 4th August 2015 for regular
parole before the Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad and the said application is still
pending.

¶20

3.The counsel for the Petitioner has
invited our attention to Rule 18 (2) of the
Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959,
which reads as under:

¶21

"18(2) Notwithstanding anything contained
in sub-rule (1), the Superintendent of

¶22

cwp1008.15

¶23

¶24

Prison shall also be the Competent
Authority to release a convicted prisoner
on parole for a period not exceeding
fifteen days, in case of death of his close
relation i.e. father, mother, brother,
sister, spouse or child of the prisoner."

¶25

4.In the peculiar facts of this case, since

¶26

the Petitioner's mother died on 31st July 2015 and
according to the counsel for Petitioner, the
Petitioner was to perform some religious rites, we
direct the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad to
take final decision on the application filed by
the Petitioner for parole, as expeditiously as
possible, however in any case on or before 13th
August 2015, keeping in view the provisions of
Rule 18 (2) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and
Parole) Rules, 1959, and the procedure prescribed.

¶27

5.It is made clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the
contentions of the Petitioner and it is left open

¶28

cwp1008.15

¶29

¶30

to the Divisional Commissioner to take appropriate
decision in accordance with law.

¶31

6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶32

.The learned A.P.P. appearing for State
undertakes to communicate this order by the
fastest mode of communication to the Office of the

¶33

Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶34

.The Parties to act upon authenticated

¶35

copy of this order.

¶36

[A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶37

asb/AUG15

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh 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

Mohd. Sikandar Mohd. Maulans Vs Shri Abdul Habib Abdul Rahim Bagwar and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra. Vs Shaikh Ameer Shaikh Abdulla.

Sudhakar Yashvantrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rohit Bajarang Gupta and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Azher Khan S/O Pasha Khan Vs the Police Inspector Jinsi P.S.Aurangabad and Anr.

Dr. Nainesh Prabhakar Dahale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.