1 criwp172.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 172 OF 2017.
Apparao Bahadur Ghuge,
C-4374, detained in Central
Prison, Amravati. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Superintendent,
Central Prison, Amravati.
2. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati.
3. Additional Director General of Police
and Inspector General of Prison,
Maharashtra, Pune - 1. ... RESPONDENTS
....
Smt. Sneha Dhote, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner.
Smt. N.R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
....
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 21ST JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Prasanna B. Varale, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner is undergoing the sentence and is lodged at Central Prison, Amravati. The petitioner was convicted and awarded sentence for commission of offence under Sections 302, 498A of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 03.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Washim. The petitioner submitted ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:57:00 ::: 2 criwp172.17 an application before the respondent/ authorities for grant of parole on the ground that he wanted to visit his family members at his place of residence. This application was submitted on 26.07.2016. The report was called from the Superintendent of Police, Washim. On 24.09.2016, a negative report was forwarded. By communication dated 26.09.2016, it was informed that the proposal for grant of parole leave is remitted back to the prison authority in view of the amendment in the Rules by Gazette Notification dated 26th August, 2016.
3. Smt. Dhote, the learned Counsel (appointed) to represent the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner was much prior to the Gazette Notification. She further submits that till the communication dated 26.09.2016, there is nothing on record to submit that the negative police report was received by the authorities. She also submits that in such a situation the authorities were not required to return back the proposal for grant of parole leave. It could have been decided by the authorities on the basis of the Rules prevailing on the date when the application was filed by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of her submission that the authorities erred in not deciding the application giving retrospective effect to the Gazette Notification and sitting tight over the application of the petitioner, places reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 09th June, 2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 62 of 2017. The reply filed by the State shows that the petitioner submitted an application for grant of parole leave not only on the ground of visiting his family members but on the ground of illness of his son.
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:57:00 :::
3 criwp172.17
4. Though the authorities in reply made an attempt to support the order/communication dated 26.09.2016, in our opinion, the authorities could not have returned back the proposal. The authorities were expected to decide the application for grant of parole as per the Rules prevailing and the material available with the authorities. We find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petition needs to be allowed. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i). The authorities to decide the application seeking grant of parole submitted by the petitioner on 26.07.2016 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three weeks from today. The fees of the learned Counsel appointed to represent the petitioner are quantified at Rs.1,500/-.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
*rrg.
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:57:00 :::