Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 369 (BOM)

Naser Bin Sayyad Chaus v. State of Maharashtra

2013-02-13

M.T.JOSHI, S.B.DESHMUKH

body2013
JUDGMENT : S.B. Deshmukh, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Petitioner in this Writ Petition is praying for following reliefs:- "A. This writ petition may kindly be allowed; B. By issuing Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Div. Commissioner Aurangabad, dated 02.02.2013 may kindly be quashed and set aside." 3. Present Writ Petition by the petitioner is filed on 7.2.2013. In pursuance to the notice issued by this Court, on behalf of the respondents, affidavit-in-reply is filed. It has been sworn in by Smt. Vidya D/o Ramrao Mundhe, working as Tahsildar (G.A.D.) in the Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the daughter of the present petitioner i.e. Mona Begum is scheduled on 17.2.2013 at about 10.30 am. Petitioner-prisoner, therefore, seeks parole leave, enabling him to attend the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner-prisoner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, refers to the earlier order dated 19.4.2012 passed by this Court (P.V. HARDAS and A.V. POTDAR, JJ.) in Criminal Writ Petition No.345 of 2012. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the order referred to. It was Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It reflects from the said order that the petitioner in that Writ Petition had filed the application for grant of furlough and he was under an apprehension that the application would not be considered by the respondents. This Court, therefore, permitted the petitioner to file an application, praying for his release on parole, on account of the marriage of his daughter. Ultimately, this Court, directed the respondents in that Writ Petition that in the event of filing of the application by that petitioner seeking his release on parole, the authorities shall decide the same on or before 20th May, 2012. The facts in the said Writ Petition are altogether different from the facts in the present Writ Petition. 6. In that facts of the present case, it is not possible to countenance the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The facts in the said Writ Petition are altogether different from the facts in the present Writ Petition. 6. In that facts of the present case, it is not possible to countenance the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. has placed on record alongwith the affidavit, copy of the Government Gazettee, wherein there is proviso to Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2012. There is no dispute amongst the learned counsel present before the Court that parole of the present petitioner commenced from 15.5.2012 and expired on 15.6.2012. In view of the proviso to Rule 19, it has been provided that a prisoner shall not be released on parole for the period of one year after the expiry of his last parole except in case of death of his nearest relatives mentioned above. Undisputedly, present is not the case of exception. Reliefs sought, therefore, cannot be considered favourably. Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.