Bombay High Court
Vikas Mohanji Rahangdale (In ... vs Divisional Commissioner Nagpur ... on 6 July, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 CRIWP222.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 222 OF 2017
PETITIONER : Vikas Mohanji Rahangadale (In Jail)
Aged about adult, Convict No. C-8769,
Central Prison, Nagpur
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1] Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
2] The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Nagpur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Sonali B. Khobragade Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ambarish M. Joshi, A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE and
MURLIDHAR G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : JULY 06, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.
2] By this petition, the petitioner is before this Court with a
2 CRIWP222.17.odt
prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 04.1.2017
passed by the respondent no.1 and release the petitioner on parole
leave according to amended Circular dated 01.12.2015.
3] It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be
released on parole leave as per the Circular dated 01.12.2015. It is
further submitted that the respondent no.1 authority has wrongly
directed to release the petitioner on depositing a refundable amount
of Rs.15,000/- and furnishing two sureties.
4] Ms. Khobragade, the learned counsel for the petitioner
pointed out Government Notification/Circular, dated 01.12.2015 and
submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole
leave as per the said Circular.
5] The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the
order passed by this Court, dated 21.12.2016 in Criminal Writ
Petition No.839/ 2016, filed by the petitioner himself, by which this
Court directed the respondents to release the petitioner on parole
within two weeks and accordingly, the respondent no.1 passed the
3 CRIWP222.17.odt
order dated 04.1.2017, directing the petitioner to deposit refundable
amount of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties, in view of Government
Notification dated 26.8.2016. The learned counsel submitted that
the petitioner is from very poor family and he is not in a position to
deposit Rs.15,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that when the
petitioner had applied for grant of parole leave, the co-prisoner
namely Jitendra Gabhane had also applied for grant of parole leave
and co-prisoner Jitendra Ghabhane was released on depositing
refundable amount of Rs.2,000/- with one Surety by applying
Notification/Circular dated 01.12.2015, whereas in case of the
petitioner, Notification/Circular dated 26.8.2016 is applied.
Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside
the impugned order and releasing the applicant in view of Circular
dated 01.12.2015.
6] Mr. Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that in view of Circular dated 26.8.2016, the respondent-
authorities directed the petitioner to deposit refundable amount of
Rs.15,000/- and two sureties.
4 CRIWP222.17.odt
7] From the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and the documents on record it is clear that the petitioner
had applied for parole leave on 01.7.2016 i.e. prior coming into
effect the amended Circular dated 26.8.2016 and at the relevant time
Circular dated 01.12.2015 was prevailing. As per Circular dated
01.12.2015, the petitioner ought to have been released on same
conditions on which co-prisoner Jitendra Gabhane was released.
Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 is liable to
be quashed and set aside.
8] In the result, the criminal writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 04.01.2017 is quashed and
set aside. The respondent no.1 authority is directed to release the
petitioner on parole leave as per Government Notification / Circular,
dated 01.12.2015 within a period of two weeks from today after
obtaining necessary bonds and undertakings.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
