Mumbai, 08/02/2021: An exterior view of the Bombay High Court in Mumbai on February 08, 2021. Photo: Vivek Bendre | Photo credit: Vivek Bendre
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has refused to grant parole to a prisoner convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, noting that those convicted of “terrorist offences” are not eligible for parole as per rules in Maharashtra Huh.
On December 2, 2022, A division bench of Justice SB Shukre and Justice MW Chandwani dismissed a plea filed by Hasan Mehndi Sheikh, a convict serving life sentence at Amravati Central Prison, seeking regular parole to see his ailing wife Had demanded
Mr Shaikh was convicted for various offences, including under stringent provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).
After the jail authorities rejected his application on the ground that he was not eligible for parole under the provisions of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, he approached the High Court.
The High Court in its order noted that there was a specific provision in the rules which disqualifies a convict under TADA from getting the benefit of regular parole.
“It is clear that there is a bar on prisoners convicted of terrorist offences, TADA being about terrorist offences, from being released on regular parole,” the court said.
“The petitioner has been convicted under TADA and hence shall not be eligible for regular parole,” the HC said.
Mr Shaikh in his petition had relied on a 2017 judgment of the Supreme Court which held that even if a convict is found guilty under TADA provisions, it would not disqualify him from seeking regular parole.
The High Court, however, refused to accept this, saying that the prisoner in the SC case was from Rajasthan and hence not governed by the rules for prisoners in Maharashtra.
“The apex court has acknowledged the fact that several state governments have framed guidelines on parole to bring objectivity in the decision making and to decide whether parole is required in a particular case or not,” the HC said .