Rupesh Parshuram Fulare vs Superintendent Of Jail Central ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6405 Bom

                                             1                                   37-WP-22-21.odt


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.22 OF 2021
                                RUPESH PARSHURAM FULARE
                                                   Vrs.
            SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL, CENTRAL PRISON, AMRAVATI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of                             Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Shri S. D. Chande, Advocate for petitioner.
                          Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for respondent-sole.

                                          CORAM: Z.A. HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 09/04/2021.

1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19/10/2020 passed by respondent rejecting emergency parole leave of the petitioner for 45 days.

2. The petitioner on 08/10/2020 had applied for emergency parole relying on amended sub-rule (c) of Rule 19(1) of Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, 1959. The said application is rejected by the impugned order dated 19/10/2020 mainly on the ground that the petitioner is convicted for offence under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (for short, "the Act of 2012") and therefore, the proviso to sub- rule (c) of Rule 19(1) of Rules of 1959 does not apply to the convicts for serious economic offences or the offences under the Special Act.

2 37-WP-22-21.odt

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is convicted for offence under the provisions of the Act of 2012 which is a Special Act. A Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pintu s/o Uttam Sonale Vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 06/11/2020 had interpreted proviso to sub-rule (c) of Rule 19(1) of Rules of 1959, wherein the prisoners convicted under the provisions of the Special Act, are not entitled the benefit of the emergency parole leave.

4. In paragraph No.3 of the impugned order, the respondent has rejected parole leave application relying on the proviso which restricts the right of the convicts who are convicted under the provisions of the Special Act.

5. We, therefore, find that the respondent has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application for emergency parole filed by the petitioner. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.

                                JUDGE                             JUDGE

Choulwar