Bombay High Court
Vilas Sarjerao Ghodake (C-8428) vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
925crwp-978-21
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 978 OF 2021
Vilas Sarjerao Ghodake
(C. No.8428) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Harsool,
Aurangabad ...Respondents
....
Mr. G.O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondents / State
....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2021
PER COURT:-
1. We have received this communication in writing from the
convict through Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad. The same
is treated as a criminal writ petition.
2. Heard. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable forthwith.
The learned APP waives notice for respondents-State.
1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 14:01:12 :::
925crwp-978-21
2
3. The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for life vide judgment and order dated
07.02.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions
Case No. 189 of 2015.
4. In terms of the amended Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Maharashtra
Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, respondent No.2
herein has released the petitioner / convict on Covid Emergency
parole. However, while granting him Covid Emergency parole, the
respondent / Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad has
directed the petitioner / convict to furnish two sureties for an
amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) in addition to
the execution of the personal bond.
5. The convict has communicated that he is a poor person and
due to financially weak position he is unable to furnish two sureties,
as directed. The petitioner / convict is ready to furnish one surety
for the like amount and thus prayed that the condition of furnishing
two sureties as directed by the respondent / Superintendent of Jail
may be modified to that extent.
2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 14:01:12 :::
925crwp-978-21
3
6. This Court (Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge and B. U. Debadwar,
JJ.) by order dated 16.03.2021 in Criminal Writ Petition No.257 of
2021 and the Division Bench headed by (Coram : V. K. Jadhav and M.
G. Sewlikar, JJ.) by order 09.03.2021 in Criminal Writ Petition
No.340 of 2021 taken a similar view and modified the condition to
the extent of one surety instead of two sureties.
7. The learned APP submits that though the rule provides no
specific requirement or guidelines or directions of furnishing two
sureties by the convict while releasing him on Covid Emergency
parole, however, the same is left at the discretion of the authority
concerned. The learned APP appearing for respondent-State has
fairly accepted that it was a requirement of furnishing two sureties in
the notification issued by the Home Department dated 26.08.2016,
however, in the notification dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Home
Department, Mumbai omitted the said word "two sureties" and
instead of that in Rule 24A, it is mentioned that "the parole may be
granted to a prisoner subject to his executing a surety bond in Form
A, a Personal Bond in Form B".
8. It thus appears that the respondent / Superintendent of Jail,
Aurangabad in terms of the old notification dated 26.08.2016 has
directed the convict to furnish two sureties while granting him Covid
3 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 14:01:12 :::
925crwp-978-21
4
Emergency parole. The petitioner / convict is the poverty stricken
person. He is in jail for a long period. It is thus difficult either for
him or his relatives to make the arrangement of two sureties.
Furthermore, in case of the petitioner / convict there are only aged
parents in the house. On earlier occassion, this court in the aforesaid
two cases has relaxed the said condition and directed the petitioner /
convict to furnish one surety for an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand Only) which should be an independent surety, not
relative to the prisoner.
9. The petitioner / convict is a poor person and it is not possible
for him or his relative to make the arrangement of two sureties.
10. In Criminal Writ Petition Nos.630 of 2021, 631 of 2021, 632 of
2021, 633 of 2021 and 634 of 2021 this Court has relaxed the said
condition and directed the petitioner /convict to furnish one surety
for an amount of Rs.20,000/-, which should be an independent
surety, not relative to the prisoner.
11. In view of the above, we are also inclined to take a similar
view and decide this writ petition in the similar manner. Hence, the
following order :
4 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 14:01:12 :::
925crwp-978-21
5
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is modified and the petitioner / convict is
directed to execute a Personal Bond of Rs.10,000/- and one surety of
Rs.20,000/- which should be an independent surety, not relative to
the prisoner.
(iii) Rest of the conditions in the impugned order remained as it is.
(iv) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ] [ V. K. JADHAV ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S.P. Rane
5 of 5
