Bombay High Court
Abhijit S/O Baban Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 22 April, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Sherla V.
12.wp.78.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.78 OF 2021
Abhijit s/o. Baban Pawar ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & others ... Respondents
Mr.S.B. Talekar i/b Talekar & Associates for the Petitioner
Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP, for Respondent - State
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED: APRIL 22, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the
learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.
2. Heard Mr.Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.Yagnik, the learned APP appearing for the
Respondent - State. Mr.Talekar invites our attention to exhibit 'L'
(page 171) of the compilation of the Writ Petition and submits that
the application filed by the petitioner to release him on Covid-19
parole has been rejected on legally unsustainable grounds. It is
12.wp.78.2021.doc
submitted that merely because the petitioner was not earlier
released once or twice on furlough or parole, the prayer of the
petitioner for releasing him on Covid-19 parole should not have
been rejected. In support of his submission, he relies on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Writ Petition-ASDB-LD-VC
No. 65 of 2020 (Milind Ashok Patil & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors.).
3. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that in case the
petitioner files a fresh application, the respondent authorities will
consider the same on its own merits.
4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP and keeping in
view the fast spread of Covid-19 virus, we are inclined to allow this
petition partly so as to enable respondent No.3 to consider the
prayer of the petitioner afresh for releasing him on Covid-19
Parole. Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order, it appears
that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground
that the petitioner was not earlier released once / twice. The said
ground is not sustainable in view of the exposition of law in the
case dealt with by the Bombay High Court at its Aurangabd Bench
12.wp.78.2021.doc
in the case of Kavita w/o. Dilip Baviskar vs. The State of
Maharashtra1 (Coram: T.V. Nalawade & Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.),
wherein a view is taken that merely because the petitioner was
released once and not twice in the past on parole/furlough, it
cannot be a ground for rejecting the application for emergency
parole.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a). The impugned order dated
25th January, 2021 (Exhibit 'L') passed by Respondent No.3 is
quashed and set aside. The petitioner to file a fresh application
within one week from today. Upon filing of such an application,
Respondent No.3 shall consider the said application as
expeditiously as possible, however, within three weeks from the
date of filing such application in accordance with Prisions (Bombay
Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and communicate the decision
thereon to the petitioner within the same period. All the
contentions raised on merits in the petition are kept open to be
agitated before the said authority. The said authority shall not
mechanically reject the application on the same grounds which are
mentioned in the impugned order. While considering the prayer of
1 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.571 OF 2020 decided on 30th June, 2020
12.wp.78.2021.doc
the applicant, the authority shall keep in view the present
conditions in jail, the fast spread of the Covid-19 virus and then
take a decision on such application.
9. Rule is partly made absolute to above extent. The writ
petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
