Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 385 (BOM)

Yair Daniel Lavon v. State

2013-02-15

F.M.REIS

body2013
Judgment : Heard Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order dated 30/01/2013 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby an application for parole filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. The ground on which the parole has been refused by the respondent no.2 is that the allegations with regard to the sickness of the mother of the petitioner have not been duly established. 5. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that it is well settled by this Court that only in cases of very serious sickness such parole is to be granted. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that serious sickness of the mother of the petitioner has not been established and as such the question of granting parole would not arise. 6. On the other hand, Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner was released on parole on two earlier occasions namely on 11/03/2011 and 9/03/2012. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner had not committed any breach of the conditions imposed on him at the time of such release. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the contentions of the respondent no.2 to refuse parole are totally unacceptable. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner shall abide with any condition and even report at the nearest police station even twice a day. 7. On being asked as to on what ground the petitioner was released on parole on earlier occasions Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, has pointed out that even on the earlier two occasions the petitioner was released on parole on account of the sickness of the mother. 8. On perusal of the medical certificate produced by the petitioner it appears that the mother of the petitioner apart from suffering from other ailments is also suffering from heart disorder. 8. On perusal of the medical certificate produced by the petitioner it appears that the mother of the petitioner apart from suffering from other ailments is also suffering from heart disorder. There is nothing to suggest that the respondents have disputed the authenticity of the said medical certificate. In such circumstances and taking note of the fact that the petitioner was released on parole on the same ground on the earlier occasions, I find that the ground on which respondent no.2 refused the parole cannot be accepted. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the earlier orders passed in similar situation, I find that the petitioner is entitled for parole subject to conditions. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 30/01/2013 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner is entitled for parole for a period of seven days upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.2 lacs (Rupees Two lacs only) with one surety in the like amount. (iii) The petitioner shall also report at the nearest police station everyday during the said period. (iv) The petitioner as well as his mother, Lavon Nava shall surrender their passport to the Inspector General of Prisons. (v) The respondent no.2 shall impose the remaining conditions for such release in accordance with rules and law. (vi) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (vii) The Petition stands disposed of. Parties to act on the authenticated copy.