Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Futurmal Kapoorchand Borana, a life convict lodged at Nashik Road Central Prison, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 3rd February 2012 passed by respondent no.1 (the appellate authority) rejecting his prayer for parole for 30 days on the ground of sickness of his mother. He had earlier applied for parole on 17th August 2011, which was rejected by respondent no.3 (the Divisional Commissioner) on 17th September 2011. The petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 270/2002 on 24th November 2004 for offences under Sections 396, 395, and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, and his appeal against conviction (Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 2005) was pending before the High Court. The petitioner contended that both the authorities rejected his parole application mechanically, without applying their minds to the medical certificate and other material he had submitted, and instead relied solely on an adverse police report from Pali, Rajasthan. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the decisions were made after due consideration of the material. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the orders of rejection were indeed based solely on the adverse police report, which stated that the medical certificate was not reliable and that there was a possibility of the petitioner fleeing or committing offences if released. The court noted that the authorities had not considered the medical certificate or other material placed by the petitioner. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and directed respondent no.3 to decide the petitioner's parole application afresh, after considering all relevant material and giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote
A) Parole - Ground of Sickness of Mother - Application of Mind - The rejection of parole by the appellate authority and the Divisional Commissioner was based solely on an adverse police report without considering the medical certificate and other material placed by the petitioner - Held that the authorities must apply their mind to all relevant material and not mechanically accept police reports (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of parole by the appellate authority and the Divisional Commissioner was mechanical and without proper application of mind to the medical evidence and other material placed by the petitioner.
Final Decision
The impugned orders dated 17th September 2011 and 3rd February 2012 are quashed and set aside. Respondent no.3 is directed to decide the petitioner's parole application afresh, after considering all relevant material and giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Parole
- Life Imprisonment
- Article 226
- Constitution of India
- Indian Penal Code
- Sections 396
- 395
- 449
- Maharashtra Prison Rules
- Adverse Police Report
- Mechanical Rejection
- Application of Mind
