Pandit @ Baban Chimaji Bhutekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 2054 Bom

                                                                    901_wp_1535_2016.doc

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                                 
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 1535 of 2016

        Pandit @ Baban Chimaji Bhutekar,




                                                         
        Age 48 years, R/at- Jalprabhat
        Nagar Chawl, Galli No.4, Bhimseva
        Mitra Mandal, Ramabai Colony,
        Ghatkopar (East),




                                                        
        Mumbai - 400 075.
        (At present lodge dat Kolhapur
        Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur
        C/6070)                                                 ...Petitioner




                                               
                             Versus

        1.
        2.
                                  
               The State of Maharashtra
               The Superintendent,
               Kolhapur Central Prison,
                                 
               Kalamba, Kolhapur.                            ...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 : 29th April, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. 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

Megha 1 of 4

901_wp_1535_2016.doc

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

on 29.5.2016. 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.

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 18 to 28 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

Megha 2 of 4

901_wp_1535_2016.doc

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 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 18 to 28 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


Megha                                                                                      3 of 4





                                                                 901_wp_1535_2016.doc

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.

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.

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






Megha                                                                                 4 of 4