1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2202 OF 2009 Mr.Shakir Ahmed @ Kalu Abdul Hamid Khan ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Mohd. Rashid i/b A.M. Saraogi for the petitioner Ms.M.H. Mhatre APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 24th November 2009 P.C. 1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 5th August 2009 passed by Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge at Sewree refusing him permission to have home food. 3. Petitioner is undergoing trial in Sessions Case No.414 of 2009 for the offences punishable u/s.144, 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the IPC and 2 is remanded to judicial custody. Petitioner is lodged in Arthur Central Prison in the Judicial custody. He made an application to the Sessions Court for permission to have home food on the ground that he suffers from Diabetes and High Blood Pressure and requires special dietary precautions. The application was rejected by the Sessions Court on account of submissions made by the learned APP that facility for diet for Diabetic patients or heart patients is available in the jail. In the affidavit which has been filed in this court by Mr.Ashok C. Rane, Additional Superintendent, Central Prison, there is no mention that such facilities are available in the central prison. The affidavit only states that the petitioner was referred to J.J. Hospital and treated for haemorroids and gastroenteritis. The affidavit however states that since no special diet has been advised by the doctors at J.J. Hospital, there is no need to provide him home food. In the affidavit, respondent has not denied that the petitioner suffers from Diabetes and High Blood Pressure. The affidavit also does not state that petitioner was ever referred to J.J. Hospital for Diabetes and High Blood Pressure and whether any advise regarding diet was sought on account of Diabetes and High Blood Pressure suffered by the petitioner by the petitioner. The affidavit also does not say that prison had facility for diabetic diet. Thus, in my view, the learned Sessions Judge erred in relying upon a mere statement of the APP that there is a provision in the Central Jail for a special diet. Statement was not based on any material on record and in fact, affidavit filed in this court also does not say so. 3. In Brijesh Singh @ Bhiru @ Arunkumar Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition no.748 of 2008), a Division Bench of this Court has directed to allow the petitioner therein to have home food 3 after making requisite checks of the parcel. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I see no reason to deny such a facility to the petitioner, whose suffering from the aforesaid illnesses is not denied. Hence, petition is allowed in the following terms. 4. Petitioner is permitted to have home food provided the home food is supplied within the stipulated timings provided by the jail authorities, subject to the usual checks before the food is delivered to the petitioner. 5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)