Firoz Chand Khan Pathan vs State Of Mah.Thr. Secretary Home ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17392 Bom

 wp 651.21 judg.doc                                                                             1


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

                         Criminal Writ Petition No. 651 /2021


 Firoz Chand Khan Pathan,
 Convict No.C/9049, aged 36 years,
 Occ.- Nil, Confined at Central Prison, Nagpur.                     ... Petitioner.


                                      VERSUS

 1. State of Maharashtra
    through Secretary Home Department,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai.

 2. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
    Nagpur.                                                         ...Respondents

 ______________________________________________________________
                Mrs. Shweta Wankhede, Adv for petitioner.
                  Mrs. N.P. Tripathi, APP for respondents.
 ______________________________________________________________

                     CORAM: M.S. SONAK & PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATE : 14-12-2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per: M.S. Sonak, J.)

Heard Mrs. Wankhede, learned Counsel for the petitioner

and Mrs. Tripathi, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks emergency parole and complains

that the emergency parole granted to him on 15-06-2021 was unduly

curtailed based on vague apprehensions of the possibility that the

applicant would indulgence to offences.

3. We have heard Mrs. Wankhede, learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Mrs. Tripathi, learned APP for the State. We have also

perused the record.

4. From the record we find that from 17-01-2020 the

petitioner has availed parole leave for considerable period. There is

prima facie material on record that during this period at least 2

offences were registered against the petitioner. One of the offences

relates to the provisions of Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC and

another relates to Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.

5. Having regard to these facts, we think there was no error

on the part of the authorities curtailing the emergency parole granted

to the petitioner on 15-06-2021.

6. Mrs. Wankhede, learned Counsel submits that even after

the registration of offences the petitioner was released on parole. If

this is the position, the record indicates that the authorities are acting

quite fair in this matter. But since the record indicates that the

appellant has availed of parole leave on 17-01-2020 to 18-03-2020 and

thereafter from 11-05-2020 to 11-02-2021, there is no case made out

for grant of further emergency parole. Inter alia, having regard to the

improving COVID-19 position the petitioner was released on parole on

15-06-2021, but the report of the authorities said that the petitioner

has breached the terms and conditions of the order. Therefore, the

authorities have curtailed the period and the petitioner was brought

back to the prison on 24-07-2021.

7. Having regard to all these circumstances including the

COVID-19 position at the Nagpur Central Prison explaining in

paragraph 13 in the reply affidavit of respondent no.2, we do not think

that the petitioner is entitled to any relief at this stage. The petition is

therefore liable to be dismissed and thereby dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

      (Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.)                      (M.S. Sonak, J.)



 Deshmukh