Allowed

Shikh Rauf Shaikh Ayub (C-9866) v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Jan 2017WP/1501/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Writ Petition challenged an order rejecting a parole application. The High Court found the reasons given were unsustainable due to lack of material evidence regarding witness threats and the presence of a new, unmentioned ground. The court quashed the order and directed the Divisional Commissioner to reconsider the prayer.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14-09-2016 is quashed and set aside. The Divisional Commissioner is directed to reconsider the petition for parole release and communicate the decision by 27-01-2017.

Shikh Rauf Shaikh Ayub (C-9866) Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 Cri.WP-1501-16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1501 OF 2016

¶4

Shaikh Rauf Shaikh Ayub Age: 29 years, occu: Nil, Ujjainpuri, Tq. Badanpur, District: Jalna Presently lodged at Central Prison, Nashik Circle No. 4/1 ...PETITIONER

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32. 2. Superintendent of Police, Jalna, District Jalna 3. Superintendent of Central Prison, Nashik, Nashik Road, Dist. Nashik. 4. Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) Nashik Division, Nashik. ...RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr. Devidas R. Shelke, Advocate for petitioner - Appointed Mr. D.R. Kale, APP for Respondents

¶8

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 11^th JANUARY, 2017.

¶10

JUDGMENT :- ( Per : S.S. Shinde, J.)

¶11

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for appearing parties.

¶12

This petition takes exception to the order dated 14-09-2016 passed by respondent No. 4 - Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in case of dz-lk'kk@1@1@ihvks,y@dkfo@17420@2016-

¶13

2 Cri.WP-1501-16

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner invites our attention to the reasons assigned in the impugned order and submits that there was no material documents before respondent No. 4 so as to reach to the conclusion that the petitioner - applicant when released on parole on earlier occasion gave threats to the witnesses. The learned counsel further submits that in absence of any record to suggest such conduct of the petitioner, respondent No. 4 could not have rejected the application of the petitioner for releasing him on parole.

¶15

Pursuant to the notices issued to the respondents, affidavit in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. In said affidavit, it is stated that there are other male members in the family of the petitioner, who can look after ailment of the mother and therefore prayer of the petitioner to release him on parole is rightly rejected by respondent No. 4 – Divisional Commissioner, Nashik.

¶16

We have carefully perused the contents of the impugned order and the reasons assigned in the impugned order while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole leave, which are as under:

¶17

“1- canhph vkbZ 'kseqfulk fg vktkjh vlY;kckcr fyejk gkWfLiVy iCyhd ikWyh fDyuhd vkacsMdj pkSd vkSjaxkckn ;sFkhy oSÌdh; izek.ki= vkgs-

¶18

2- canh gk [kqukP;k xqUg;kr tUeBsi f'k{kk Hkksxr vlqu R;krhy fQ;kZnh o lk{khnkj ;kaps tckc ?ksrys vlrk rs lkaxrkr dh] canh ;kus ;kiqohZ jtsoj vkY;koj fQ;kZnh lk{khnkjkauk Qksuoj /kedkoys gksrs rks jtsoj vkY;kl iqUgk /kedo.;kph 'kD;rk vlqu R;kps fojks/kkr lk{k fnY;kus R;kps iklqu /kksdk vlY;kps lkaxr vkgs- rjh canh ;kl jtsoj lksMY;kl R;kps dMqu lk{khnkjkauk /kedo.;kph 'kD;rk vlqu ,[kknh vfiz; ?kVuk ?kM.;kph 'kD;rk ukdkjrk ;sr ukgh-“

¶19

In affidavit in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 nowhere it is stated that as a matter of fact respondent No. 4 adverted to any

¶20

3 Cri.WP-1501-16

¶21

documentary evidence which would indicate that petitioner gave threats to the witnesses, except statement of witnesses. In short, there was no material available before respondent No. 4 in the nature of complaint to the police by the witnesses and phone call record to reach to the aforementioned conclusion.

¶22

In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the reasons assigned by respondent No. 4-Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order are not sustainable. The contention of the learned APP appearing for the respondents that there are other male members in the family of the petitioner to look after the mother of the petitioner is also altogether new ground which is not mentioned in the impugned order.

¶23

For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 14-09-2016 passed by respondent No. 4 - Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in case of dz-lk'kk@1@1@ihvks,y@dkfo@17420@2016 is quashed and set aside. We direct respondent No. 4 to consider the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on parole afresh, as expeditiously as possible, however, on or before 27-01-2017 and communicate the said decision to the petitioner.

¶24

Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶25

The parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

Sd/Sd/-

¶27

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶28

MTK

Shikh Rauf Shaikh Ayub (C-9866) v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shikh Rauf Shaikh Ayub (C-9866) 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Linabai @ Pramilabai W/O Ashok Dhivare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kalpana Baban Madan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sharad S/O Trambak Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Damodar Rambhau Gulhane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devidas S/O Sukhdeo Ghate and Other Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.