Dismissed

Amjad Shaikh Kamereddin Mansuri v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2021WP/2773/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected the petitioner's Writ Petition for Covid-19 emergency parole. The Jail Superintendent opposed the plea citing the abscondment of the petitioner's co-accused mother, fearing the petitioner might also abscond. The Court held this apprehension was well-founded considering the mother's prior failure to return after her parole period. Declaration made accordingly; Rule discharged.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition rejected and Rule discharged.

Amjad Shaikh Kamereddin Mansuri Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

15_WP.2773.2021.doc

¶3

Digitally signed by VISHWANATH VISHWANATHSATYANARAYANA SATYANARAYANASHERLA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SHERLA Date: 2021.09.14 14:33:45 +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2773 OF 2021

¶5

Amjad Shaikh Kamereddin Mansuri 32 years, r/o: HUDCO Colony, Near Madina Masjid, … Petitioner Ranjanagar, Taluka : Chalisgaon Dist.: Jalgaon

¶6

Vs. 1) State of Maharashtra 2) The Superintedent of Jail … Respondents Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik

¶7

Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner

¶8

Ms.Sangeeta Shinde, APP, for Respondents

¶9

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.

¶10

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: SEPTEMBER 14, 2021

¶11

JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):

¶12

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the

¶13

learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.

¶14

2. The Petitioner had applied for grant of Covid-19 emergency

¶15

parole for 45 days in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and the amendment in the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules,

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

15_WP.2773.2021.doc

¶18

However, his application was rejected vide order dated

¶19

2^nd June, 2021 passed by Respondent No.2 – Superintendent of Jail, Nashik Road Central Prison, District Nashik, on the ground that the petitioner’s mother, who is a co-accused, is absconding since 7^th August, 2020. The petitioner is a convict undergoing sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has been in jail since 4 years and 9 months.

¶20

3. Mr.Vagal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner was released in the past once from 28.5.2020 to 13^th July, 2020 and he had returned to the jail in time. He submitted that if the co-accused is absconding, it is not the fault of the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶21

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent – State, opposed the petition for grant of Covid-19 emergency parole. It was submitted that now the situation in the Nashik Road Central Prison, District Nashik, has changed substantially. It was submitted that the number of inmates in the said prison are less than the capacity. It was submitted that there is no crowd in the jail and that the authorities

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

15_WP.2773.2021.doc

¶24

have sufficient infrastructure now to immediately take care of any inmate or staff, who may suffer from Covid-19 virus. Further, the mother of the petitioner, who is a co-accused, is absconding and there is an apprehension expressed by the jail authorities that if the petitioner is released, there is every likelihood that he may also abscond. She has, therefore, submitted that the petition be dismissed.

¶25

5. We have perused the record forwarded by the respondents to the office of the Public Prosecutor of this Court. The facts and figures stated therein indicate that in pursuance of release of number of inmates due to Covid-19 pandemic, now the situation in the Nashik Central Prison, Nashik, has changed substantially. It appears that all the convicts in the Nashik Road Central Prison are vaccinated and proper care is being taken to prevent the spread of Covid-19 virus. It is submitted by the learned APP appearing for the State that the number of convicts / under-trial prisoners in the said prison are not more than its capacity and there is no overcrowding as such. Further, all the inmates are being provided masks and sanitisers as per requirement. Also, the jail staff are allowed entry into the jail only after thermal scanning.

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

15_WP.2773.2021.doc

¶28

Furthermore, RT PCR, Rapid Antigen tests are being conducted on a regular basis. There is an apprehension expressed by the Respondent – Superintendent of Jail, Nashik Road Central Prison, in the impugned order dated 2^nd June, 2021 that, as the coaccused is absconding, there is every possibility of the petitioner also absconding.

¶29

6. On persual of the impugned order, it is observed that in case the petitioner is released on Covid-19 emergency parole, he may not report back to the jail to undergo the remaining sentence. The stand taken by the respondents is well founded inasmuch as the co-accused, namely, Fatima Kamereddin Mansuri (Convict No.C/11999), who is the mother of the petitioner, is absconding and did not return back to the jail on completion of the parole period.

¶30

7. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is rejected. Rule discharged. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶32

(S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶33

Page 4 of 4

Amjad Shaikh Kamereddin Mansuri v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amjad Shaikh Kamereddin Mansuri 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

Abhishek Shyamlal Chandak and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Haresh Bodani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hardik Ashwin Rawal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pratap Tukaram Godse Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjana Sanjay Kotawdekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kishor Popat Devare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.