Mohd. Faruque Mohd.Yusuf vs State Of Mah. Thr. Superintendent ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2149 Bom

                                                                                                                           911.cri.wp.488.2020.odt
                                                                                      (1)

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.488/2020

                           Mohd. Faruque Mohd. Yusuf,
                           C-4380, Aged about Major,
                           Occu: Nil (Presently in Central
                           Prison Amravati)                                                                        ..... PETITIONER


                                                                        // VERSUS //
             1.          State of Maharashtra Through
                         Superintendent of Jail,
                         Central Jail, Amravati.

             2.          Divisional Commissioner,
                         Amravati Division, Amravati.

             3.          The Deputy Inspector General of
                         Prison, Eastern Reason, Nagpur.                                                         .... RESPONDENTS

             ----- ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------
                           Shri S. D. Chande, Advocate with Shri Raju Kadu,
                           Advocate for petitioner
                           Ms. T. H. Khan, APP for the respondents.
             - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


                                                          CORAM :                       SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                                                                        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 02/02/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2] Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties.

911.cri.wp.488.2020.odt

3] It is not in dispute that what petitioner is seeking

here is emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(C) of the Prisons

(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred

to as the "Rules, 1959") on the ground of Covid-19 pandemic, in

terms of newly added Clause (C), vide Government notification

dated 8th May 2020. Since this ground of Covid-19 parole has

been newly added in Sub Rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Rules, 1959,

it has no connection whatsoever with the eligibility for furlough,

unlike the connection that regular parole under Rule 19(2) of

the Rules, 1959 would have. However, the impugned order

shows that the case of the petitioner has been considered as if

the petitioner was seeking regular parole and that was the

reason why it was found that as the petitioner was not eligible

for furlough, he being a convict in a terrorist crime, the

petitioner would also not be entitled to be released on

emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(C) of the Rules, 1959.

Such reasoning adopted in the present case is erroneous and

therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of

law.

4] The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order

is hereby quashed and set aside. The case of the petitioner is

remanded back to the respondent no.2 for its consideration

911.cri.wp.488.2020.odt

afresh, in accordance with law, and on its merits.

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

                               JUDGE                                   JUDGE




             sarkate