Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Asgar Kadar Sheikh and Mohd Yakub Abdul Majid Nagul, were convicts in the 1996 Bombay Blast case, serving sentences for offences under the Indian Penal Code, Railways Act, and Protection of Public Properties Act. They had undergone actual imprisonment of 23 years and 18 years respectively. They applied to the Jail Superintendent for emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which was rejected on 30/06/2020 on the ground that they were convicted under Special Acts and not entitled to the benefit. The petitioners challenged this rejection by filing a criminal writ petition. In the petition, they made a categorical statement in para 17 that they were eligible for emergency parole as they had surrendered on due date on the last two occasions. However, in para 3 and 6 of the petition, they stated that petitioner no. 1 had surrendered on due date each time, while petitioner no. 2 had surrendered late by 11 days. The respondent filed an affidavit-in-reply revealing that petitioner no. 1 had also surrendered late by 11 days on one occasion. The court found that the petitioners had suppressed material facts and made misleading statements. The court held that the petition was liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts and making misleading statements, as the petitioners did not approach the court with clean hands. The court dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Emergency Parole - Suppression of Facts - The petitioners, convicts in the 1996 Bombay Blast case, sought emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, but suppressed material facts regarding their previous parole history and overstays. The court held that the petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts and making misleading statements, as the petitioners failed to approach the court with clean hands. (Paras 3-8) B) Prisons - Parole - Misleading Statements - The petitioners made a categorical statement in para 17 of the petition that they had surrendered on due date on the last two occasions, but the affidavit-in-reply revealed that petitioner no. 1 had surrendered late by 11 days and petitioner no. 2 had surrendered late by 11 days. The court held that such misleading statements disentitle the petitioners to any discretionary relief. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and whether the petition should be dismissed for suppression of material facts and making misleading statements.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed for suppression of material facts and making misleading statements.
Law Points
- Suppression of material facts
- Misleading statements
- Emergency parole
- Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
- 1959
- Rule 19(1)(C)(ii)
- Convicts under Special Acts
- Discretionary relief
- Equitable jurisdiction
