Farukh Mukhtar Shaikh v. The State Of Maharashtra

by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date:

2022.09.19 17:15:05 +0530 RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1236 OF 2020 Farukh Mukhtar Shaikh

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Kushal Mor, Appointed Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. S.D.Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.

DATE : 16 th SEPTEMBER, 2022 P.C. :

1.

By this petition, sent through jail, the petitioner challenges the arbitrary condition imposed by the authorities whilst granting emergency parole i.e. the petitioner was directed to produce a surety of a Central or State Government Employee of Rs.1,00,000/- and cash surety of Rs.1,00,000/-.

1/3

2.

On the face of it, the said condition was arbitrary, making it impossible for the petitioner to comply with the same. 3.

This Court whilst hearing the aforesaid petition observed in its order dated 26th August, 2022 that the Inspector General of Prisons had appeared in this Court and had stated that the State Government would look into the issue of arbitrary imposition of surety condition and accordingly, had issued a circular dated 17th August, 2022 giving instructions to the concerned Jail Authorities with respect to the condition of surety.

4.

Learned APP informs that the competent authority subsequently reduced the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and as such, granted parole to the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner gives a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- and one surety, of a relative for the same amount. She further, on instructions, submits that the said order was communicated to the petitioner, however, the petitioner did not avail of the said modification of the surety condition.

2/3

5.

We may note, that emergency parole was sought on the ground of the demise of the petitioner's father. Since, the petitioner has not availed of the modified order and the period for which it was granted, being over, nothing survives for further consideration in the aforesaid petition.

6.

Petition accordingly is disposed of as infructuous. PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

3/3