Pravin S/O. Pundalik Rathod vs The Superintendent Of Jail ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11756 Bom

                                                                         1                        Cr.W.P.No.574.2021-J


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.574 OF 2021

  Pravin S/o. Pundalik Rathod,
  Aged about        years,
  R/o. Bhandegaon, Taluka - Darhva,
  Dist. - Yavatmal.
  (Presently C/4804, Central Prison,
  Amravati, District Amravati).                                                                 ....PETITIONER

                                ---- VERSUS ----

  Superintendent of Jail,
  Central Prison, Amravati,
  District Amravati.                                                                            .... RESPONDENT
  _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  Ms. P. M. Mane, Advocate h/f. Shri S. D. Chande, Advocate for the
  Petitioner.
  Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, A.P. P. for the Respondent/State.
  _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



                         CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                                                 AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : 25.08.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. By this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging order dated

01.06.2021 passed by the respondent imposing condition of

payment of escort charges while granting parole leave for a period

of 14 days.

4. The petitioner is a convict for the offence punishable

under Sections 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, and is

undergoing imprisonment for 10 years.

5. The petitioner on 07.05.2021 filed an application with

the respondent stating that due to death of his father, it is necessary

for him to attend last rites of his father on the said date and,

therefore, prayed for emergency parole of 14 days as contemplated

by Rule 19(1)(B) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole)

Rules, 1959 (hereinafter refers as "The Rules of 1959"). The

respondent therefore, called for report from Senior Police Inspector,

Police Station, Darwha, District Yavatmal, who submitted report

stating that father of the petitioner had expired on 06.05.2021 and

on previous occasions when the petitioner was released on leave,

the petitioner has surrendered on due date.

6. The respondent by impugned order allowed the

emergency parole leave of the petitioner subject to payment of

escort charges of 3 days. The petitioner has therefore, challenged

the condition of payment of escort charges on the ground that the

said condition is unreasonable.

7. This Court by order dated 11.08.2021 issued notice to

the respondent. The respondent has filed reply stating that the

request of the petitioner has been considered subject to payment of

escort charges and since he has not paid the said charges, he could

not be released by the respondent.

8. We have carefully considered the impugned order. Rule

19(1)(B) of the Rules of 1959 confers discretion on Superintendent

of Prison to decide whether to grant parole under police escort or

with a condition to report daily to the local police station,

depending upon the nature of crime committed by the prisoner and

his conduct during his stay in the prison. Having gone through the

impugned order, it appears that the respondent - Authority has not

applied it's mind to the condition of exercise of discretion imposed

under Clause B of Rule 19(1) of the said Rules. It was necessary for

the respondent to give reasons as to why the respondent is directing

the petitioner to grant parole under police escort and not a

condition to report daily to the local police. Under the said Rules, it

was necessary to exercise jurisdiction after taking into

considerations nature of the crime committed by a prisoner and his

conduct during his stay. On consideration of the averments in the

petition, and in particular paragraph No.13 of the petition wherein

that the petitioner had always surrendered in time whenever he was

released on leave and taking into consideration nature of the

offence committed by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the

respondent ought to have exercised discretion under Rule 19(1)(B)

of the Rules of 1959 by imposing condition of reporting daily to

local Police Station.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on

record letter dated 07.06.2021, which quantifies amount of escort

charges at Rs.2,69,352/-. It is stated in paragraph No.11 of the

petition that it is difficult for the petitioner to pay the escort charges

as the petitioner is very poor and labour class. On consideration of

Rule 19(1)(B) of the Rules of 1959, we are satisfied that the

respondent was required to exercise discretion depending upon the

nature of the offence committed by the petitioner and his conduct

during his stay.

10. In view of above, we pass following order :

  i.                The petition is allowed.



  ii.               The        respondent   shall       release    the     petitioner       on

emergency parole of 14 days for performing last rites of his father

subject to condition that he shall report to Police Station, Darwha

once in every 24 hours and subject to other conditions as

permissible under the provisions of the Rules of 1959.

11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

                                    JUDGE                                  JUDGE



RGurnule