Chandrakant Vasant Aayare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6548 Bom

Sherla V.


                                                                      wp.744.2021.doc


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.744 OF 2021

            Chandrakant Vasant Aayare                                ... Petitioner
                        Vs.
            1. State of Maharashtra
            2. The Superintendent of Jail,                       ... Respondents
            Yerwada Open District Prison, Pune



            Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner

            Ms.Sangeeta Shinde, APP, for Respondent - State


                                           CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                                                   MANISH PITALE, JJ.

JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON : APRIL 8, 2021.

JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON: APRIL 20, 2021.

JUDGMENT [PER S. S. SHINDE, J.]:

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the

consent of the 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 19.5.2020, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

wp.744.2021.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-827), is convicted for the

offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for life

imprisonment, in Sessions Case No.13 of 2012 on 13.2.2014 by

the Sessions Court at Vasai.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the

petitioner has undergone more than 8 years of imprisonment and

he is lodged in the open 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 was never released

on parole/furlough, till date. Therefore, the learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner submits that merely because the

Petitioner was not released 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

wp.744.2021.doc

notification dated 8th May 2020 issued by the Government of

Maharashtra, Home Department. It is submitted that the inmates

are less in number as compared to the capacity of the prison.

Utmost care is being taken in the prison by the officers and

employees working in the prison, by examining the convicts by

thermal scanning and RT-PCR tests. At present, there are no

convicts who are tested positive/Covid-19 affected in the prison.

Therefore, learned APP submits that the prayer of the petitioner to

release him on emergency (Covid-19) parole cannot be favorably

considered.

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 pleadings and grounds in the petition, annexures

thereto, impugned order/letter of understanding and also report

received from the Superintendent of Yerwada Open Prison, Class-

I, Pune-6. Upon careful perusal of the said report received from the

prison authority, it appears that proper care is being taken of the

convicts in the prison so as to avoid possibility of contracting

wp.744.2021.doc

Covid-19 virus. However, in the impugned order/letter of

understanding, the reason given is that the Petitioner herein was

not released on furlough or parole, till date. Another reason given

is that if the convict is from other State, in that case, emergency

(Covid-19) parole cannot be granted to that convict. Thirdly, the

inmate who is convicted for the economical offences and under

Special Act is not eligible for emergency (Covid-19) parole.

7. In our opinion, merely because the petitioner was not

released earlier cannot be a ground for rejecting the application of

the petitioner for emergency parole. This Court in Criminal Writ

Petition-ASDB-LD-VC No. 65 of 2020 (Milind Ashok Patil & Ors.

Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) had occasion to consider a

similar issue and a view is taken in the said case that merely

because the petitioner was not released once in the past on

parole/furlough cannot be a ground for rejecting the application for

emergency parole.

8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed.

The impugned order dated 19.5.2020 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

wp.744.2021.doc

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.

9. Rule is partly made absolute to above extent. The writ

petition stands disposed of accordingly.

 (MANISH PITALE, J.)                             (S. S. SHINDE, J.)