Bombay High Court
Nisha W/O Lalmani ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
Digitally signed
LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT
GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date: 2021.08.30
11:20:34 +0530 cri.wp-2666.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2666 OF 2021
Nisha w/o Lalmani Giri, ]
(Petitioner son Narendra s/o Lalmani Giri, ]
Convict No.6455, Confined at Central Jail, Kalamba ]
Age : 53 years, Occu : Housewife ]
R/o : House No.235, Mahapegaon, ]
Near Millennium Business Park, Navi Mumbai, Thane ]..... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra ]
Through Superintendent ]
Central Prison, Kalamba, Kolhapur, ]..... Respondent.
Mr. Rupesh A Jaiswal for the Petitioner.
Mrs. S D Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
Reserved on : 24th August 2021
Pronounced on : 30th August 2021
JUDGMENT ( PER S S SHINDE, J.)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantial relief :-
(B) By Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or directions in the like nature to quash and set aside the
order of Respondent dated 25.06.2021 (Exhibit-B) and
lgc 1 of 6
cri.wp-2666.21.odt
further direct the respondent to release the Petitioner's
son (Narendra S/o Lalmani Giri, convict no.6455,
confined at Kalamba, Kolhapur Central Jail) on
Emergency Parole Leave."
3 Convict Narendra Lalmani Giri is the son of the Petitioner. The
Petitioner's son has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in
Special MOCOCA Case No.7 of 2008 for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life
imprisonment. It is the case of the Petitioner that the convict was arrested on
26/04/2008 and he has undergone sentence of 13 years and three months
approximately.
4 Earlier the convict had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.2090 of
2021 against the order of the Respondent/Authority rejecting his application
for emergency parole. By order dated 24/06/2021, this Court has disposed of
the said Writ petition No.2090 of 2021 with liberty to the convict to apply
afresh to the concerned authority and, the concerned authority was directed to
decide the application of the convict within one week from filing of such
application.
5 Pursuant to the liberty granted by order dated 24/06/2021, the
son of the Petitioner i.e. the convict has again applied for emergency parole
leave, however, the said application has been rejected by the
lgc 2 of 6
cri.wp-2666.21.odt
Respondent/Authority by the impugned order dated 25/06/2021. Hence this
Writ Petition.
6 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that
against his conviction, the convict has preferred an Appeal before this Court
being Appeal No.1095 of 2021, and this Court by order dated 09/12/2019 has
set aside the conviction of the convict under the provisions of the MCOCA Act.
It is also submitted that the Respondent/Authority rejected the 2 nd application
of the Petitioner's son on the same grounds assigned in the earlier order of
rejection, and therefore, there was non-application of mind on the part of the
Respondent/Authority. It is also submitted that when the convict was released
on furlough leave on 11/12/2020, he surrendered in time before the
Respondent/Authority. It is submitted that the convict is behind the bar for a
period of 13 years and 3 months. He also submitted that the central jail,
Kalamba, Kolhapur is over crowded and there is no social distancing and,
considering the pandemic situation, there is more danger to the life of convict.
He also submitted that the Petitioner's son is not convicted under the
provisions of MCOC, PMLA, MPID, NDPS, UAPA etc, therefore, the condition to
release convict on parole as classified by the High Power Committee also
stands satisfied by the convict. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order
may be set aside and the Petitioner's son may be released on emergency parole.
lgc 3 of 6
cri.wp-2666.21.odt
7 The learned APP appearing for the Respondent/State, on the other
hand, supported the impugned order of rejection of the application passed by
the Respondent/Authority.
8 We have given our due consideration to the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the Respondent/
State. With their able assistance we have carefully perused the pleadings and
the grounds taken in the Writ Petition and the annexures thereto as also the
reasons assigned in the impugned order.
9 As stated herein above, by the impugned order dated 25/06/2021
the Respondent/Authority has rejected the 2 nd application of the convict for
releasing him on emergency parole leave on the ground that the Petitioner's
son is involved in serious offences and, if he is released on emergency parole,
he may get absconded.
The earlier application of the Petitioner's son for emergency parole
leave has been rejected by the Respondent/Authority on the ground that he is
released only once on furlough leave and therefore he is not entitled for
emergency parole leave.
10 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invites our
lgc 4 of 6
cri.wp-2666.21.odt
attention to the Government Notification dated 08 th May 2020 and submits
that the Petitioner's son is eligible to avail of the benefit of the said notification
for releasing him on emergency covid-19 parole.
11 The learned APP has tendered across the bar the tabular chart
showing the details regarding the parole/furlough leave granted to the convict
and the period undergone in jail by the convict. It is mentioned in the said
chart that the Petitioner's son is behind the bar for approximately period of 13
years and 3 months. It is also mentioned that earlier when he was granted
furlough leave, he surrendered within the stipulated time to the prison
authority.
12 We have carefully perused the chart produced by the learned APP
and noticed that the Petitioner's son is behind the bar for more than 13 years
and when he was released on furlough, he reported back to the prison within
the stipulated time. It is required to be noted that there is nothing on record to
indicate that the conduct of the convict in prison is not satisfactory. It is also
not in dispute that the Petitioner's son was acquitted of the offence under the
provisions of MCOCA Act. For the reasons recorded in the foregoing
paragraphs and keeping in view pandemic situation, we are of the considered
view that the Petitioner's son i.e. the convict Narendra Lalmani Giri deserves to
be released on Covide-19 Emergency Parole. Hence the following order.
lgc 5 of 6
cri.wp-2666.21.odt
ORDER
1 The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).
2 The Petitioner's son viz Narendra s/o Lalmani Giri, convict
No.6455, confined at Central Jail, Kalamba, Kolhapur, shall be released on
Covid-19 Emergency Parole subject to fulfillment of usual terms and conditions
3 Subject to obtaining appropriate undertaking and on such terms
and conditions as the Respondent deem fit and proper, the Respondent shall
release the convict Narendra s/o Lalmani Giri to avail of the parole leave
within a period of two weeks from today.
4 Rule made absolute in above terms.
5 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 6 of 6
