Bombay High Court
Rameshwar S/O Shivram Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 23 December, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1576.2016Cri.WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1576 OF 2016
Rameshwar s/o. Shivram Gaikwad,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Laborer,
R/o. Kanegaon, Ta. Lohara,
Dist. Osmanabad
Presently under going sentence
at Central Jail Harsul,
Aurangabad [Convict No.7471] PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent of Central
Jail Harsul, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.S.A.Gaikwad, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr.P.G.Borade, APP for Respondent/State
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.
Reserved on : 21.12.2016
Pronounced on : 23.12.2016
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1. Heard.
1576.2016Cri.WP.odt
2. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
3. This Writ Petition is filed with the
following prayer:
b.
By issue of appropriate writ, order
or direction the respondent no.2 be
directed to accept the cash surety
of Rs.5000/- of the petitioner and
release the petitioner on death
parole for 14 days.
4. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that in similar set of
facts the Division Bench of this Court
[Coram: S.V.Gangapurwala & V.K.Jadhav, JJ.]
in Writ Petition No.1349/2015 [Vinod @
Narhari Bapurao Sontakke Vs. The State of
Maharashtra] is allowed the prayer of the
petitioner therein and directed the
respondent to release the petitioner therein
on furnishing cash security and personal bond
1576.2016Cri.WP.odt
with imposing condition as laid down in Rule
10 of the Prison [Bombay Furlough and Parole]
Rules, 1959. The learned counsel also pressed
into service exposition of law in the case of
Chimanrao Baberao Father of Prisoner Dattarao
Chimanrao Vs. State in Special Criminal
Application No.653 of 1984 decided on 5th
December, 1984 [Gujrath High Court] and in
the case of Natia Jiria Vs. State of Gujarat
and Ors.1 and submits that the petitioners
therein were directed to be released on
furnishing cash security and personal bond.
Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the petition may
be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP
appearing for the respondent - State submits
that the petitioner is not able to furnish
surety, therefore, the petitioner cannot be
released on death parole for 14 days.
1 1984 Cri.L.J.936
1576.2016Cri.WP.odt
6. We have considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel appearing
for the parties. With their able assistance
of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perused the grounds taken in the
petition, annexures thereto and also the
judgments in the cases of Vinod @ Narhari
Bapurao Sontakke Vs. The State of Maharashtra
[cited supra], Chimanrao Baberao Father of
Prisoner Dattarao Chimanrao Vs. State [cited
supra] and in the case of Natia Jiria Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. [cited supra]. It
appears that the petitioner is undergoing
imprisonment in Central Jail Harsul,
Aurangabad. It appears that the father of the
petitioner namely Shivram Shripati Gaikwad
died on 14th April, 2016. Therefore, the
petitioner, after receiving the message of
death of his father, applied for death parole
before respondent no.2 i.e. the
Superintendent of Central Jail, Harsul,
1576.2016Cri.WP.odt
Aurangabad. We have carefully perused the
order passed by respondent no.2, it appears
that the prayer of the petitioner for
releasing him on death parole is favourably
considered and he was ordered to be released
on death parole subject to fulfillment of the
conditions, which are mentioned in the said
order. There is a condition that the
relatives of the petitioner shall stand as
surety, however, it is the case of the
petitioner that nobody is ready to stand as
surety. It appears from the perusal of the
impugned order that in the past the
petitioner was released on furlough twice and
reported back to the Jail Authorities on his
own. It is true that there was one day delay
on one occasion and on another occasion 32
days delay in reporting back, however, fact
remains that the petitioner on his own
reported back to the Jail Authority.
1576.2016Cri.WP.odt
7. In that view of the matter, for the
same reasons, which are assigned in the cases
of Vinod @ Narhari Bapurao Sontakke Vs. The
State of Maharashtra, Chimanrao Baberao
Father of Prisoner Dattarao Chimanrao Vs.
State and Natia Jiria Vs. State of Gujarat
and Ors. [cited supra], we pass the following
order:
ORDER
i] The respondent authorities shall
release the petitioner on death
parole for 14 days on his furnishing
personal bond and cash security of
Rs.10,000/- [Rs.Ten Thousand only]
and shall impose a condition that he
shall reside within the limits of
Lohara Taluka in Osmanabad District.
Further condition should be imposed
that he shall report to the
concerned Police Station on every
alternate day during his release on
1576.2016Cri.WP.odt
death parole and on completion of
the said period of 14 days, he shall
report to the Jail Authority.
ii] Rule is made absolute on above
terms. The Writ Petition is allowed
to above extent and same stands
disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
[P.R.BORA] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
