TARIK KUTUBUDDIN SAIYED vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/2819/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 2819 of 2026
With
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2819 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY SD/-

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
TARIK KUTUBUDDIN SAIYED
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KD PARMAR(589) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

Date : 24/06/2026

JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this
petition;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be issue a writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction and pleased to order authority to
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 19:32:13 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/2819/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
released the present petitioner from jail as he has completed 14 years;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS kindly quash and set aside letter dated
22.12.2025 vide No.Kramank/JLK/832025/V.J.278/J of Gujarat State
Government Annexed at Annexure-A;
(E) Kindly dispense with filing of affidavit as petitioner is in jail;
(F) That YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and
further order/s or relief/s as deem fit, and proper in the interest of
justice.”
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present
petition are such that the petitioner herein is a convict for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 363, 365, 366 and other allied offences.
The State Government vide order impugned in the present petition, dismissed
the case of the petitioner for grant of remission. Being aggrieved by the said
decision, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the present petition.
3. Heard learned Advocate Ms. K.D. Parmar appearing for the petitioner.
She submitted that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a period of
more than 15 years. The State authorities have wrongly dismissed the case of
the petitioner for grant of remission. She, therefore, submitted to allow the
present petition and quash and set aside the order impugned in the petition and
grant a benefit of remission to the petitioner. Except these, no other
submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner.
4. Learned APP has opposed the present petition contending that the State
Government has taken into consideration all the relevant factors for deciding
the case for grant of remission before passing the impugned order. The
Advisory Committee had also submitted a negative opinion against grant of
remission to the petitioner. The pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
case of Navas @ Mulanavas Versus State of Kerala reported in 2024 INSC
215 was also taken into consideration by the State Government. Therefore, the
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 19:32:13 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/2819/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
order impugned in the petition is just and proper, and therefore, no interference
is required at the hands of this Court. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the
petition.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Learned Advocate appearing
for the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate any illegality or irregularity
committed by the respondent authorities in passing the impugned order.
6. The petitioner herein has been convicted qua an offence punishable
under Sections 376(2)(g), 363, 365, 366, 377 and other allied offences. The
conviction has also been affirmed by this Court in criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner. The perusal of the impugned order indicates that before taking
decision vide impugned order, the respondent authorities had called for the
opinion from various authorities including the learned Sessions Court who had
passed the order of conviction. All the authorities appear to have given a
negative opinion against grant of remission to the petitioner. The record further
indicates that the petitioner herein is a habitual offender and several other
offences have also been registered against him and has also been convicted in
some of the other offences.
7. The offence for which the petitioner has been convicted in the present
case, is serious in nature. The petitioner and the other co-accused had
intercepted the prosecutrix when she was going to her tuition class with her
friend and they were abducted in a car where rape was committed upon them
and the act of rape was video recorded and prosecutrix and her friend were
thereafter, blackmailed on the basis of the said video footage.
8. The Jail remarks submitted by learned APP for perusal of this Court,
indicates that the conduct of the petitioner in jail, is also not good. Having
regard to these aspects, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 19:32:13 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/2819/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
order. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (PAROLE LEAVE) NO.1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2819 of 2026
In view the order passed in the main petition, the connected Criminal
Misc. Application stands disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
RAVI OZA
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 19:32:13 IST 2026