Bombay High Court
Ravindra Kashinath Dagala vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 April, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/5 CRWP-450-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 450 OF 2021
Ravindra Kashinath Dagala
Age- 55 years, Occ: Nil
R/o. At Presently lodged in
Nashik Road, Central Prison
Jail Road, Nashik Road, Nashik. ...PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Superintendent of Jail
Nashik Road, Central Prison. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner.
Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for State.
...
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 8th APRIL, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON: 20th APRIL 2021.
JUDGMENT [PER S. S. SHINDE, J.]:
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present petition for the following
substantial reliefs:
a) Order of Respondent No. 2 passed on
09.10.2020, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
Bhagyawant Punde
2/5 CRWP-450-2021.doc
b) The Petitioner may kindly be released on
Emergency Parole for the Period of 45 days on any
terms and condition as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper.
3. The Petitioner herein (Convict No. C-12419), is convicted for
the offences under Section 302, 352, 506 (2) of IPC for life and fine of Rs.
3500/-, in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2016 on 18.08.2019 by the Sessions
Court at Palghar.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the
petitioner has undergone more than 3 years imprisonment and he is lodged
in the Nashik Road Central prison. It is submitted that the application of the
petitioner to release him on emergency (Covid-19) parole was rejected on
the ground that the Petitioner herein was released only on one occasion on
parole/furlough, in past. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner submits that, merely because the Petitioner was released only
once earlier is no ground to reject his application for emergency (Covid-19)
parole.
5. Learned APP appearing for Respondent-State submits that the
prayer of the petitioner to release him on emergency (Covid-19) parole has
rightly been turned down, relying upon the notification dated 8 th May 2020
issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. It is
submitted that the requisite official capacity to accommodate the convicts in
Bhagyawant Punde
3/5 CRWP-450-2021.doc
Nashik Central Prison is 3118 inmates. By end of February 2021, there were
2311 convicts (68- women convicts and 2243 men convicts). It is submitted
that in the Nashik Central Prison 807 more convicts can be accommodated.
In order to prevent spread of Covid-19 virus, inmates/convicts who have
been recently lodged in the said prison are kept in isolation in separate hall
and after necessary health checkup and tests, they are kept in the separate
room in the prison. There is thermal scanning and rapid antigen tests are
conducted on regular basis. In case, anybody is tested positive one separate
isolation room No. 8 is maintained for their stay and treatment.
6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned APP appearing for
the Respondent-State. With the able assistance of learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner and learned APP, we have perused the pleadings and
grounds in the petition, annexures thereto, impugned order/letter of
understanding and also report received from the Superintendent of Nashik
Central Prison, Nashik. Upon careful perusal of the said report received from
the prison authority, it clearly appears on record that the proper care is
being taken of the convicts in the prison, so as to, avoid possibility of
contracting Covid-19 virus. However, in the impugned order/letter of
understanding a reason given is that, the Petitioner herein was released only
once on furlough/parole, in past.
Bhagyawant Punde
4/5 CRWP-450-2021.doc
7. In our opinion, merely because the petitioner was released only
once earlier cannot be a ground for rejecting the application of the
petitioner for emergency parole. This issue has been dealt with by the
Bombay High Court, bench at Aurangabad, in the case of Kavita w/o Dilip
Baviskar v/s. The State of Maharashtra (Coram: T.V. Nalawade & Shrikant D
Kulkarni, JJ), wherein a view is taken that whether the convict was released
on one occasion or twice on parole in past and reported back in time, had
been introduced with an intention to see that the convict shall return to jail in
case he is released on emergency parole. It is further held in the said case that
through the petitioner therein had released only once on parole in the past, he
was entitled to be released on emergency parole.
8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed.
The impugned order dated 09.10.2020 passed by Respondent No. 2, is
quashed and set aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to apply afresh for
grant of emergency Covid-19 parole within one week from today. Upon
filing such an application, the respondent authority shall decide the same on
its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, however, within three weeks
from the date of filing of the application in accordance with the Prisions
(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and keeping in view the factors
like the extent of spread of Covid-19 virus and conditions in jail.
Bhagyawant Punde
5/5 CRWP-450-2021.doc
9. Rule is partly made absolute to above extent. The writ petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
( MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
