AMIRUDDIN CHHOTUMIYA SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, brother of a convicted prisoner, has invoked Articles 21, 24 and 226 of the Constitution with the prayer to quash order dated 22. 07. 2009 of I. G. Prisons, whereby the petitioner's application for parole was rejected on the ground that he was likely to abscond. According to the averments made on oath in the petition, brother of the petitioner is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 1 lac after being found guilty of the offences under the NDPS Act. It is further stated that the prisoner has reached marriageable age and his marriage was fixed with Rubinabanu, daughter of Javed Patangwale from Shah-e- alam, Ahmedabad, on 26. 07. 2009; and now it is fixed on 16. 08. 2009. It is stated that when the marriage of the prisoner himself is arranged, his presence is absolutely necessary at home for performing his own marriage ceremony. The invitation card for the marriage is annexed as Annexure-B to the petition.

(2.) UPON the averments made in the application being investigated by Police Inspector, Mr. M. A. Khokhar of Isanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad, it is reported by letter dated 18. 08. 2009 addressed to learned A. P. P. that the so-called bride, Rubinabanu, has herself stated in her statement that she is already married since five years to one Mohmmad Faiyum and has two children from that marriage. The mother of Rubinabanu has also confirmed that Rubinabanu is married and, on account of good relations with the petitioner's family, they have given false statements on earlier occasions.

(3.) WHILE the present petition was pending, learned counsel was specifically asked to verify the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the petition and learned A. P. P. was requested to make proper enquiries through the police station concerned. The hearing was, for that purpose, adjourned from 11. 08. 2009 to 13. 08. 2009, due to approaching date of the marriage ceremony. Learned counsel had consistently relied upon the invitation card printed for expressing the programme of marriage related ceremonies and kept personally present in the Court, the would-be-bride, Rubinabanu and, her mother. However, due to shortage of working time of the Court, no questions could be asked to the ladies in front of the Court. Thus, in short, a show was made of great urgency and genuine occasion of marriage of prisoner, with documentary evidence of the wedding card and personal presence of the would-be-bride and her mother. It was only after proper inquiry by the police that the truth came out and immediately learned counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition.