Bombay High Court
Sandip Bhalchandra Wagh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/3 Judgment WP-135-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.135 OF 2021
Sandip Bhalchandra Wagh )
Age : 23 years, Occ : Private Service, )
R/o : N51/AH/2/3, Rajratna Nagar, )
CIDCO, Nashik ).. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra )
Through its Principal Secretary, )
Home Department, Mantralaya, )
Mumbai -32. )
)
2. The Divisional Commissioner, )
Nashik Division, Nashik, )
Office at Commissioner Office, )
Nashik Road, Nashik. )
)
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police )
(Prison) )
Central Division, Central Prison, )
Harsul, Aurangabad )
)
4. The Superintendent of Prison, )
Central Prison, Nashik Road, )
Nashik ) .. Respondents
...
Mr.Piyush Toshnival for the Petitioner.
Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2021
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/3 Judgment WP-135-21.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.
2. The learned APP, has tendered across the bar, report received
from the Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. Same
is taken on record. In the said report, it is stated that there are less
inmates than the requisite capacity of the jail. It is further stated
that preventive steps are being taken to avoid the spread of Covid-19
virus. The sum and substance of the report is that the conditions in
the jail are proper and the contention of the petitioner that there is a
threat of spread of Covid-19 virus has no substance.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
prayer of the petitioner stands rejected only on the ground that till
date he is not released on parole, even once in past. According to
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application of the
petitioner to release him on Covid parole should not have been
rejected on said ground. In support of the aforesaid contention, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance on
the unreported judgments of this Court in case of Kalyan s/o
Bansidharrao Renge Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal
Writ Petition No.ASDB-LD-VC 265 of 2020 decided on 28 th August,
2020) and in case of Uzair @ Hujer S/o Rafiq Shaikh Vs. The State
of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition (St) No.2989 of 2020
decided on 22nd October, 2020).
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/3 Judgment WP-135-21.doc
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Upon perusal of the reports submitted by the learned APP, it is
abundantly clear that the number of prisoners in the said jail are less
than the capacity to accommodate the prisoners in the said jail.
Secondly, the report suggests that all care is being taken to prevent
the spread of Covid-19 virus in the jail. In that view of the matter,
we cannot restrict our adjudication to the reasons assigned in the
impugned order. We find considerable substance in the submissions
of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that his
application has been rejected only on one ground that the petitioner
was never released on parole in the past.
5. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order and
direct the respondent-jail authority to re-consider the prayer of the
petitioner to release him on Covid Parol/Parol/Furlough. The
petitioner to file a fresh application within one week from today. In
case, such an application is filed, concerned authority shall decide
the same within two weeks from the date of filing of such
application.
6. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed
of. Rule stands discharged accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
