ARUN Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER NAGPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally forthwith by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, who upon his conviction, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3 (1) (i), 3 (i) (ii), 3 (2), 3 (4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life along with other accused persons. Presently, he has been lodged in Nagpur Central Jail. The petitioner was tried and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai. He was lodged in Nagpur Jail. He appears to have been temporarily transferred to Taloja Jail.

(3.) The petitioner made an application to the respondent no.1 for grant of parole to him on the count of serious illness of his spouse. It is not in dispute that on merits of the application the petitioner has been found to be eligible to be released on parole. What is at issue is the background of the petitioner which has made authorities apprehend that if he is released on parole even temporarily, the petitioner may indulge in unruly behaviour and may also commit some cognizable offence. The authorities are of the opinion that the petitioner being leader of a gang of criminals and having a fearsome influence in the area surrounding his residential place at Mumbai, there is a possibility of breach of public peace and public order and that there is also a danger to his life. The authorities are of the view that there exists in the family of the petitioner an alternate support for taking proper care of ailing wife of the petitioner. These grounds formed the basis of the impugned order dated 22.01.2020, by which the parole application of the petitioner came to be rejected. Petitioner has challenged this order in the present petition.