Eknath Balu Warhe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1895 Bom

                                                                                    902 wp 1612-16.doc

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                     




                                                                                            
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 1612 of 2016 




                                                                   
                Eknath Balu Warhe                                                 .. Petitioner 

                               v/s.




                                                                  
                The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                                   ..Respondents

                Mr.D.G.Khamkar for the Petitioner.
                Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent/State.




                                                      
                                                     CORAM : SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
                                          
                                                                    SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 27, 2016.

ORAL ORDER (PER V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.):

1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner has prayed for parole for a period of 30 days on

the ground that the marriage of his niece is to take place on

12.5.2016 and the engagement is on 3.5.2016. Hence, it is prayed

that parole may be granted for a period of 30 days. It is seen that the

petitioner has not preferred an application to the concerned authority

for parole, but he has directly approached this court with the prayer

for parole.

salgaonkar                                                                                           1 of 4





                                                                                   902 wp 1612-16.doc

3. Mr. Khamkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on

the decision of full Bench of this Court in the case of S. Sant Singh

@ Pilli Singh Ajit Singh Kalyani v. The Secretary, Home

Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors.

[2006 ALL MR (Cri) 625]. He placed reliance on paragraph 26 and

27 of the said decision to contend that a prisoner can directly

approach this court with the prayer for parole leave. We have

carefully perused the entire decision, more, particularly paragraph 26

and 27 thereof. We find that this decision does not support the

contention of Mr. Khamkar that this court can directly entertain the

application for parole by by-passing the procedure laid down in Rule

19 to 24 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, (1959)

(hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In fact, in the case of S. Sant

Singh it is clearly stated that it is for the competent authority or the

Government to decide as to whether any parole for any particular

period is to be granted. The ratio of the decision in Sant Singh is that

even if the appeal of the petitioner is pending before any court,

parole can be granted. In this decision nowhere it is held that a

salgaonkar 2 of 4

902 wp 1612-16.doc

prisoner can directly approach this court to pray for release on

parole. In fact, as stated earlier this decision holds that it is for the

competent authority to decide whether parole is to be granted.

4. There is a procedure to be followed for obtaining parole which

is set out in Rule 19 to 24 of the Rules. The application for parole is

to be made to the Competent Authority. Thereafter the Competent

Authority may grant or reject the application for parole. In case the

application for parole is rejected, appeal is provided to the State

Government. The petitioner has bypassed this entire procedure of

preferring an application for parole to the concerned authority and

has directly approached this court. This cannot be allowed.

5. In our opinion, such an application should not be entertained

and the prisoner/convict has to follow the proper procedure for

obtaining parole. He cannot directly approach this court for parole

or furlough. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to

entertain this petition, hence rule is discharged.

salgaonkar                                                                                         3 of 4





                                                                         902 wp 1612-16.doc

6. However, in case the application for parole is preferred by the

petitioner to the concerned authority, the concerned authority shall

dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

                                                        
                                                       
              (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)                (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)




                                             
                                       
                                      
               
            






salgaonkar                                                                               4 of 4