Quashed

Zuber Mohd. Kasam Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Dec 2018WP/5665/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting an application for emergency parole under the Maharashtra Prisons Rules. The High Court of Bombay quashed the impugned order, holding that the rejection grounds were not valid and directed the authority to reconsider the application for parole under police escort upon payment of expenses by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed; the petitioner was directed to be granted emergency parole under police escort subject to payment of expenses and other terms fixed by the authority.

Zuber Mohd. Kasam Shaikh Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Prodn-504-WP-5665-

¶2

2018.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5665 OF 2018

¶5

Zuber Mohd. Kasam Shaikh … Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. N.N.Gawankar I/by Mr. Manas N. Gawankar for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mrs. P.P.Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA & SANDEEP K. SHINDE J J. DATE : 17 DECEMBER, 2018

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶11

Today, the learned APP has produced for perusal of the

¶12

Court, a copy of the order dated 17 th December, 2018 passed by the

¶13

Deputy Inspector- General (Prisons) Central Zone, Aurangabad. The

¶14

Petitioner applied for Emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(A) of the

¶15

Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 as

¶16

amended by the amendment Rules of 2018 published under the Notification dated 16 th April, 2018. The emergency parole was sought by the Petitioner with a view to attend his real brother’s

Shivgan 1/4

Prodn-504-WP-5665-

2018.odt

marriage which is to be solemnised on 23 rd December, 2018. One of the grounds set out in the impugned order is of the adverse police report. The second ground is that the Petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC as well as under the MCOC Act. The third ground is that he has been convicted for the offence punishable under the Passport Act. We have perused the police report.

¶21

2 Considering the extreme urgency, we permit the

¶22

Petitioner to amend the Petition. We have heard parties on the prayer for quashing the order dated 17 th December, 2018.

¶23

3 We are of the view that grounds set out in the impugned order dated 17 th December, 2018 may not be available for rejecting the application for emergency parole. Apart from the fact that the police report is based on mere apprehension, Emergency parole could have been granted under a police escort.

Shivgan 2/4

Prodn-504-WP-5665-

2018.odt

4 The learned APP on instructions states that Emergency

¶28

parole under police escort can be granted to the Petitioner provided

¶29

the Petitioner is willing to bear the expenses of providing police escort. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is ready and willing to pay necessary charges.

¶30

5 Accordingly, we dispose of the Petition by passing the

¶31

following order:

¶32

(I) The impugned order dated 17 th December, 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside;

¶33

(II) In the light of discussion in the judgment , the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Aurangabad shall immediately re-consider the application made by the Petitioner by granting him emergency parole under the Police escort subject to other terms and conditions which may be fixed by the said authority in accordance with law;

¶34

(III) The Petition is disposed in the above terms. (IV) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶35

(V) The learned APP to telephonically communicate this order to the Deputy Inspector

Shivgan 3/4

Prodn-504-WP-5665-

2018.odt

General of Police, Central Zone, Aurangabad instructing the officer to act upon the information supplied by her.

¶40

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶41

(A.S.OKA, J.)

¶42

Shivgan 4/4

Zuber Mohd. Kasam Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zuber Mohd. Kasam Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Suresh Narayan Jagdale and 3 Ors. Vs the Collector,Office of Mumbai Suburban District and Anr.

Sheila Chrisitian Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Prakash Shankar Dhembare Vs Union of India through the Secretayr, Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Indu. Security Force and or

Central Bank Employee'S Union and 5 Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mr. Shivaji Babu Kamble Vs Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Principal Secretary State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sujata Ashok Gaikwad @ Sujata Bajirao Shinde Vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner