Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohammed Parvez Zulfikar Qureshi, a convict in the Bombay Bomb Blast case sentenced to life imprisonment under TADA (P) Act, 1987, challenged the order dated 29.7.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, rejecting his parole leave application. The petitioner had applied for parole on 5.5.2009 on the ground of his father's illness. The application was rejected based on an adverse police report dated 25.6.2009, which expressed apprehension that the petitioner would not return to jail after the leave period. The petitioner contended that he had previously been released on furlough leave on 28.2.2009 and surrendered on time on 5.3.2009. Additionally, during the pendency of the trial, he was released on temporary bail almost 11 times between 1998 and 2006 and always surrendered on time. The court, after hearing both sides, found that the petitioner's past conduct of timely surrender negated the police apprehension. The court held that the rejection order was unsustainable and set it aside, directing the respondents to release the petitioner on parole leave for a period of 30 days on certain conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and surety, and reporting to the police station weekly.
Headnote
A) Prison Law - Parole Leave - Rejection on Adverse Police Report - Parole leave application rejected by Divisional Commissioner based on police apprehension that convict would not return - Court held that the petitioner's prior conduct of surrendering on time during furlough and temporary bail negates such apprehension - Held that the order of rejection is unsustainable and set aside (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of parole leave application by the Divisional Commissioner on the basis of an adverse police report is sustainable when the convict has a history of surrendering on time during previous releases.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 29.7.2009, and directed the respondents to release the petitioner on parole leave for a period of 30 days on conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and a surety of like amount, and reporting to the police station once a week.
Law Points
- Parole leave
- Prisoners' rights
- Adverse police report
- Prior conduct
- Surrender history
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 135
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1162 of 2009
P.V. Hardas, Shrihari P. Davare
Smt. A.N. Ansari for the petitioner, Shri S.D. Kaldate, APP for the respondents/State
Mohammed Parvez Zulfikar Qureshi
The State of Maharashtra, The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, The Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Central Prison, Aurangabad, The Superintendent, Aurangabad Central Prison, Nashik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging rejection of parole leave application.
Remedy Sought
Quashment of order dated 29.7.2009 rejecting parole leave and direction to release the petitioner on parole.
Filing Reason
Rejection of parole leave application by Divisional Commissioner based on adverse police report.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner was convicted by Designated Court under TADA (P) Act, 1987 on 5.6.2007 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was earlier released on furlough on 28.2.2009 and surrendered on 5.3.2009. He was also released on temporary bail 11 times between 1998 and 2006 and surrendered on time.
Issues
Whether the rejection of parole leave on the basis of an adverse police report is justified when the convict has a history of timely surrender.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he had previously been released on furlough and temporary bail and always surrendered on time, negating the police apprehension.
Respondents argued that the police report was adverse and expressed apprehension that the petitioner would not return.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner's prior conduct of surrendering on time during furlough and temporary bail negates the police apprehension that he would not return, and therefore the rejection of parole leave was unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner states that the police posed apprehension that if the petitioner is released on parole leave, he would not return back to the jail on completion of the leave period.
The petitioner further states that during the pendency of the trial, he was released on temporary bail almost for 11 times since 1998 till 2006 and he surrendered himself.
Procedural History
The petitioner applied for parole leave on 5.5.2009. The application was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner on 29.7.2009 based on an adverse police report dated 25.6.2009. The petitioner then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition challenging the rejection.
Acts & Sections
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:
