Allowed

Akbarali Anwarali Abjani v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Aug 2016WP/2303/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the High Court of Bombay granted parole to petitioner Akbarali Abjani for 30 days on grounds of his father's knee surgery, noting his consistent timely return during five earlier parole periods, while explicitly refusing any extension.

What did the court decide?

Parole granted for 30 days on the ground that the father needs knee surgery; period will not be extended.

Akbarali Anwarali Abjani Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

2. cri wp 2303-16.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2303 OF 2016

¶5

Akbarali Anwarali Abjani .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Appearances

¶10

Mr. Prosper D'Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶12

MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : AUGUST 8, 2016.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶17

The petitioner preferred an application for parole on

¶18

3.3.2016 on the ground of illness of his father which was

¶19

rejected by order dated 21.7.2016 by the State Government.

¶20

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4

¶21

2. cri wp 2303-16.doc

¶22

The petitioner had to prefer the application for parole

¶23

directly to the State Government because the petitioner is a repatriated convict. Normally, an application for parole is preferred to the Divisional Commissioner, however, as the petitioner is repatriated from Mauritius, it was necessary to make an application directly to the State Government which has been done by the petitioner. The said application came

¶24

to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner is seeking parole on the same ground that he had sought parole on earlier. The earlier ground for seeking parole was that the father of the petitioner needed knee surgery. This time also, parole is being sought on the very same ground.

¶25

Mr. D'Souza, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that on the earlier occasion when the petitioner was released on parole, his father could not be operated within the time frame that the petitioner was on parole on account of medical complications, hence, parole is being sought on the same ground now.

¶26

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4

¶27

2. cri wp 2303-16.doc

¶28

The report of the Superintendent of Thane Central

¶29

Prison where the petitioner is lodged shows that on 31.8.2009, the petitioner was released on parole on the ground of illness of his mother. The petitioner reported back to the prison in time. Thereafter, on 12.2.2010, the petitioner was released on parole on the ground of marriage of his sister. As soon as the period of parole was over, the petitioner reported back to the prison on his own. Thereafter on 28.5.2011, the petitioner was released on parole on the ground that his father had to undergo operation of prostate.

¶30

The petitioner reported back to the prison in time. Thereafter on 8.10.2012, the petitioner was released on parole on the ground that his father had to undergo hernia operation. The petitioner reported back to the prison in time.

¶31

Thereafter on 9.7.2014, the petitioner was released on parole on the ground that his father had to undergo surgery in the knee. On this occasion also, the petitioner reported back to the prison in time.

¶32

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4

¶33

2. cri wp 2303-16.doc

¶34

Looking to the record of the petitioner that whenever

¶35

he was released on parole, he reported back to the prison in time and looking to the reason for seeking parole, as a last chance, we grant parole to the petitioner for a period of 30

¶36

days on the ground that his father needs knee surgery. It is made clear that this period will not be extended under any circumstances.

¶37

The petitioner to be released on same terms and

¶38

conditions on which he was released the last time on parole.

¶39

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶40

[ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶41

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4

Akbarali Anwarali Abjani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akbarali Anwarali Abjani v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Shivaji Bhikaji Gawde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gulamali Murad Ali Makrani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Bhikaji Gawde Vs Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prison)

Ganesh Hanumant Ghuge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaukat Ali Mohammed Hussein Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Mohan Rajpat Vs the State of Maharashtra