Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mo. Hasan Mehndi Hasan Sheikh, a convict serving life imprisonment at Central Jail, Amravati, was convicted for various offences including under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). He filed a criminal writ petition seeking release on regular parole to visit his ailing wife. The Jail Superintendent (respondent No.2) rejected his parole application on the ground that under Rule 4(13) read with Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, he was not eligible for regular parole. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 15 SCC 55 held that a TADA conviction does not per se disqualify a convict from parole. However, the Bombay High Court distinguished Asfaq, noting that the Supreme Court's decision did not involve the specific Rules of 1959 applicable in Maharashtra. The court observed that the Rules of 1959 contain a specific bar against parole for TADA convicts, and the decision in Asfaq acknowledged that state governments have formulated guidelines for parole decisions. Therefore, the present case must be decided under the Maharashtra Rules. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the rejection of parole.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Parole - Eligibility of TADA Convicts - Rule 4(13) read with Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The petitioner, convicted under TADA, sought regular parole to visit his ailing wife. The Jail Superintendent rejected the application citing Rule 4(13) read with Rule 19, which bars parole for TADA convicts. The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 15 SCC 55 was distinguishable as it did not involve the specific Maharashtra Rules. The petition was dismissed, upholding the rejection. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a convict under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) is eligible for regular parole under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, despite the bar under Rule 4(13) read with Rule 19.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The rejection of parole by the Jail Superintendent is upheld.
Law Points
- Parole eligibility
- TADA convicts
- Prison Rules
- State-specific guidelines
- Distinguishing precedent
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 114
Criminal Writ Petition No. 649/2022
Sunil B. Shukre, M. W. Chandwani
Mrs. Soniya Gajbhiye (appointed) for the Petitioner; Mr. I.J. Damle, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mo. Hasan Mehndi Hasan Sheikh
State of Maharashtra, through Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati; Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking release on regular parole
Remedy Sought
Release on regular parole to visit ailing wife
Filing Reason
Rejection of parole application by Jail Superintendent on ground of ineligibility under Rule 4(13) read with Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959
Previous Decisions
Parole application rejected by respondent No.2 (Jail Superintendent)
Issues
Whether a TADA convict is eligible for regular parole under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, despite the bar under Rule 4(13) read with Rule 19.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan held that TADA conviction does not disqualify a convict from parole.
Respondent's counsel (APP) supported the rejection based on the specific bar under the Maharashtra Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
A convict under TADA is not eligible for regular parole under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, as Rule 4(13) read with Rule 19 specifically bars such parole. The Supreme Court's decision in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan is distinguishable as it did not involve the Maharashtra Rules.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has been convicted for various offences including the one under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
An application was also filed by the petitioner seeking his release on regular parole but it was rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for grant of regular parole in terms of rule 4(13) read with rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asfaq (supra) and we find that the facts of that case are quite different from the facts of this case at least in one sense.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a parole application which was rejected by the Jail Superintendent. He then filed the present criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:
- Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959: Rule 4(13), Rule 19
