ARUN SHANKAR RALMINGAM NAIDU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. The grievance made in this Petition received through Jail is as regards the rejection of the application for grant of parole in accordance with the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"). The grounds on which the application has been rejected are (i) the adverse police report which records that the place of residence of the Petitioner is touching the limits of jurisdiction of Shivaji Nagar and Deonar Police Station and, therefore, the law and order situation may be created; (ii) earlier when the Petitioner was released on leave, he did not return on the expiry of period of leave.

(2.) We have perused the adverse police report dated 25th November 2011. The report records that the complainant and the witnesses in the case in which the Petitioner was convicted were not found. Mere apprehension is expressed that as the place where the Petitioner proposes to reside is close to the jurisdiction of Shivaji Nagar and Deonar Police Stations, the possibility of the Petitioner creating law and order situation cannot be ruled out. We have perused the report submitted by the Superintendent of Nashik Road Central Prison. Though it records that earlier when parole was granted on two occasions, the Petitioner reported late, it is also recorded in Column No. 15B that his behavior when he was enlarged on furlough was satisfactory. Thus, it is obvious that the adverse police report is based on mere apprehension without there being any material against the Petitioner. Such report is no ground to deny the parole of the Petitioner.

(3.) The police report records that it was found that the Petitioner's mother was required to undergo a surgery for removing uterus and there was no one else to look after his mother. Even the surety offered by the Petitioner was found to be competent.