Bombay High Court
Deepak S/O Anil Awale vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 13 August, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 14-wp-587-21j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 587 OF 2021
Deepak S/o. Anil Awale,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Nil,
Convict No. C-10016,
Presently at Central Prison, Nagpur
(Though Legal Aid) . . . PETITIONER
...V E R S U S..
1. The State of Maharashtra through
the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur.
2. The Superintendent,
Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur. . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sumit G. Joshi, Advocate (appointed) for petitioner.
Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 13.08.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.05.2021 passed
2 14-wp-587-21j.odt
by respondent no. 2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant
of emergency parole leave.
4. The petitioner is convicted for offence punishable under
Sections 342, 120, 363, 368, 120B, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(1)(4)T, 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime (MCOC) Act, 1999. The petitioner in pursuance of
Rule 19(C)(ii) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and
Parole) Rules, 1959 (in short, "the Rules of 1959") applied for the
emergency parole. The said application has been rejected by the
respondent no. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has surrendered
late when he was released on parole on earlier occassion. The order
also reflects that the petitioner has been convicted under the special
Act i.e. under the MCOC Act. The petitioner, by way of the present
petition is challenging the said order of rejection.
5. Shri Sumit G. Joshi, learned Advocate (appointed) for the
petitioner submits that the order passed by the respondent no. 2 is not
in accordance with law. He submitted that in view of the Covid
pendemic situation, the petitioner is entitled for benefit of amended
Rule 19(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959.
3 14-wp-587-21j.odt
6. We have carefully considered the impugned order. On
consideration of the impugned order and memo of the petition, it is
undisputed fact that the petitioner is convicted for offence punishable
under the special Act i.e. MCOC Act. In addition to that the petitioner
has surrendered late on earlier occassion when he was released on
parole leave in the year 2019. From the impugned order, it appears
that the petitioner had surrendered late by 475 days and the petitioner
was required to be arrested and brought back to the jail.
7. This Court in the case of Milind Ashok Patil Vs. State of
Mararashtra (Criminal Writ Petition-ASDB-LD-VC No. 65/2020) has
held that prisoner is entitled for emergency parole leave under Rule
19(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959, if he has surrendered in time when
released earlier. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pintu
Uttam Sonale Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2020) 6 Mh.L.J.
627 has held that convicts, who are convicted for offence under the
speical Act are not entitled for the benefit of emergency parole.
8. In view of the judgment of this Court in Pintu Uttam
Sonale (supra) and Milind Ashok Patil (supra), the impugned order
passed by the respondent no. 2 does not call for any intereference.
9. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
4 14-wp-587-21j.odt
10. Shri Sumit G. Joshi, learned Advocate appointed to
represent the petitioner is entitled for professional fees of Rs. 1500/-
(Rs. One Thousand Five Hundred).
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
