Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6550 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2021
1/5 wp.731.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.731 OF 2021
Biltu Domilal Gupta ... 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.
V.S. Sherla
2/5 wp.731.2021.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-717), is convicted for the
offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for life
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in Sessions Case No.295 of 2007
on 7.9.2010 by the Sessions Court, Vasai.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the
petitioner has undergone more than 13 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 notification
dated 8th May 2020 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Home
V.S. Sherla
3/5 wp.731.2021.doc
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 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
V.S. Sherla
4/5 wp.731.2021.doc
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 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,
V.S. Sherla
5/5 wp.731.2021.doc
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.) V.S. Sherla
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!