Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 204 (BOM)

Anil Madhavrao Dhawale v. State of Maharashtra

2007-02-14

K.J.ROHEE, S.R.DONGAONKAR

body2007
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : K.J. ROHEE,J. 1. Respondent/ State has not filed reply though time was granted for that purpose. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. The petitioner has been convicted for offences under the M.C.O.C. Act and is a life convict. His brother Harishchandra is coaccused and he is also life a convict. 3. On 5.2.2007 Smt. Janabai the mother of the petitioner died. On 6.2.2007, the petitioner and his brother Harishchandra were released for 3 hours for performing last rites. Thereafter, both of them applied for regular parole on account of death of their mother. It seems that death parole for 7 days was granted to Harishchandra. The competent authority did not grant death parole to the petitioner on the ground that death parole has been granted to his brother and unless the brother surrenders, the petitioner would not be released. Apparently the reason for rejecting the death parole, is not justified. The petitioner is entitled to be released on death parole. At the most sufficient security can be obtained from him by the competent authority. We therefore, pass the following order 4. Petition is allowed. The competent authority is directed to release the petitioner on death parole for a period of 7 days on obtaining adequate security to its satisfaction. The petitioner should be directed to report to Police Station, Lakadganj, Nagpur on every alternate day between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Hamdast granted.