This court allowed a criminal writ petition for parole. Rejecting the authority's refusal based on the co-accused's murder and the surety's gender, the court granted parole for 30 days citing the petitioner's good conduct and prior successful parole history.
Petitioner discharged on parole for a period of 30 days on furnishing the same surety.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2. cri wp 521-17.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 521 OF 2017
Suresh Maruti Shinde
.. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra
.. Respondent
Appearances Ms. Zeba Sikora i/by Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 17, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on
23.12.2015 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application was rejected by order dated 18.3.2016. Being
aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The
said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3
2. cri wp 521-17.doc
17.10.2016. Hence, this petition.
if he is released on parole and there would be law and order problem. The third reason for dismissing the appeal is that the petitioner has furnished surety who is a lady.
she cannot keep a watch on the petitioner and ensure that he complies with all the terms and conditions on which he is released on parole. Moreover, it is seen that the same suety was furnished earlier by the petitioner when he was released on parole / furlough and the petitioner has reported back in
time. As far as the co-accused being murdered is concerned,
it is seen that since 2011, the petitioner has been released
jfoanz vkacsjdj
2 of 3
2. cri wp 521-17.doc
on parole or furlough and there has been no danger to his
life. He was released on furlough on 9.7.2011, 30.11.2013
and 14.3.2016. He was also released on parole on 10.8.2012
on death parole. Thereafter, he was released on parole on 5.10.2012 and 27.8.2014. Out of six occasions that he was released on parole and furlough, he has reported back to the prison in time on five occasions. Except on one occasion i.e
on 9.7.2011 when he was released on furlough, he reported back to the prison one day late. Looking to all these facts and the fact that the conduct of the petitioner in prison is stated to be good, we are inclined to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 30 days.
30 days on furnishing the same surety i.e surety of Ujwala Suresh Shinde and on other terms and conditions as set out by the competent authority.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be released on parole given the murder of a co-accused and the gender of the proposed surety.
Suresh Maruti Shinde
State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
M.S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
