Bombay High Court
Prakash Ramsing Daude vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 November, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
crwp1433.16
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1433 OF 2016
Prakash Ramsing Daude,
Age. Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At present Central Prison,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-31.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad.
3. Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad. ....Respondents
.....
Advocate for Petitioner: Ms. Sarita Gaikwad
APP for Respondent/State:Mr. S.G. Karlekar
.....
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE AND
V. K. JADHAV, JJ.
DATED: 21st NOVEMBER, 2016
JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of
parties.
crwp1433.16
3. This petition seeks direction to respondent authorities to
release the petitioner forthwith on parole on the ground of death of
his son Sandeep.
4. The petitioner herein filed the application to the Superintendent
of Central Jail, Aurangabad taking recourse to Rule 18 of the Prisons
(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 on the ground that his
son viz. Sandeep, died on 8.10.2016. Learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner invited our attention to the provisions of Rules 18 and
19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959, and
submitted that, the reason assigned in the impugned communication,
rejecting the request of the petitioner to release him on parole, is
unsustainable. In as much as, no time limit is provided in the said
Rule that an application requesting to release on parole be
entertained and convict be released within stipulated period from the
date of death of nearest relatives. It is further submitted that son of
the petitioner, Sandeep died on 8.10.2016, and the petitioner
immediately filed the application seeking recourse to the provisions
of Rule 18 of said Rules, on 14.10.2016. As a matter of fact, after
enquiry, the competent authority passed an order on 17.10.2016,
thereby allowing the request of the petitioner to release him on parole
for 7 days. When the petitioner went to the competent authority with
surety, the authority refused to release the petitioner on parole on the
crwp1433.16
ground that 10 days time is elapsed from the death of son of the
petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on parole.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of her
contentions that no time limit is prescribed under the scheme of
Rules 18 and 19 of said Rules for release of convict on parole on the
ground of death of his nearest relative, placed reliance on unreported
judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 680 of 2016
(Rameshwar Shivram Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra)
dated on 14.06.2016.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
respondent authorities submits that the reasons given by the
respondent authorities are justified and legally sustainable, therefore,
the prayer to release the petitioner on parole may not be entertained.
However, during the course of hearing, learned A.P.P., on
instructions, submits that on earlier three occasions, the Petitioner
was released on parole. When the Petitioner was released on
parole, he reported back to jail authorities within time.
6. Upon hearing counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondents and on careful perusal
of the provisions of Rules 18 and 19 of Bombay Furlough and Parole
Rules, it is abundantly clear that there is no time limit stipulated in
crwp1433.16
said Rules stating that in case of acceding to the prayers/request of
the convict to release him on parole on the ground of death of his
close relative, the convict can not be released after expiry of 10 days
from the death of nearest relative. Upon perusal of sub Rule (2) of
Rule 18 of the aforesaid Rules, it is crystal clear that the
Superintendent of Prison shall also be the competent authority to
release a convicted prisoner on parole for the period not exceeding
15 days, in case of death of his close relation i.e. father, mother,
brother, sister, spouse or child of the prisoner. In the present case, it
is not disputed by the respondents that Sandeep, son of the
petitioner, died on 8.10.2016. It also appears from the reasons
assigned by the competent authority that delay caused in taking
decision and release of the petitioner, was due to not receiving the
police report till 17.10.2016. The provisions of Rule 19 are very
clear, wherein it is provided that, in case parole is to be granted on
the ground stated in Sub- Rule (2) of Rule 18 of the said Rules, on
the ground of death of nearest relative of the convict, in that case
police report is not necessary. In that view of the matter and keeping
in view observations of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of
Rameshwar Shivram Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra
(supra) and in particular para 4 thereof, we are of the opinion that the
petition deserves to be allowed.
crwp1433.16
7. In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, we direct
respondent No.3 to release the petitioner on parole forthwith for 7
days on usual conditions, as stipulated in the Rules and the
procedure laid down. Writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ petition is disposed
of.
8. Registry to issue authenticated copy of this judgment/order to
the requesting party.
9. Learned A.P.P. assures that, he will communicate this order to
the concerned Superintendent of Central Prison, forthwith.
10. Ms. Sarita Gaikwad, advocate, appointed as amicus curiae to
prosecute the cause of the petitioner, has rendered able assistance
to the Court. Fees be paid to her as per the schedule maintained by
the High Court, Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( S. S. SHINDE, J. )
rlj/
