Saraswati Santosh Sonawane Wife ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 2627 Bom

           Digitally
           signed by
           Vishwanath                                   1/4                      CRWP-102-2021(J).doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla  Date:
           2021.02.09
           19:48:22
           +0530          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 102 OF 2021

            Saraswati W/o Santosh Dashrath Sonawane
            Alias Khandya
            Aged about 39 years, presently serving
            sentence of Life at Nashik Road,
            Central Prison as Convict Prisoner No. C-11246.                ...PETITIONER

                     Versus

            State of Maharashtra
            through its Home Ministry, Mantralaya
            Madame Cama Road, Mumbai- 400 032.                 ...RESPONDENT
                                                ...
            Ms. Payoshi Roy a/w. Ms. Chandani Chawla i/b. Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhari
            for Petitioner.
            Smt. A.S. Pai, APP for the State.
                                                ...
                                        CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                                                    MANISH PITALE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 2nd FEBRUARY , 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON: 9th FEBRUARY. 2021

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent

of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This petition is filed by the wife of the accused, who is in jail,

convicted by the Sessions Judge by its judgment dated 21.04.2017 under

sections 302, 504, 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

Bhagyawant Punde 2/4 CRWP-102-2021(J).doc

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life till the remaining life and pay fine of

Rs. 25,000/-. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the

respondent to release her husband on emergency parole.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the

husband of the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under

sections 302, 504, 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code. He was released on

01.12.2019 on furlough and he reported back to the jail authority on

22.12.2019. In March, 2020 there was spread of Covid-19 virus. The

guidelines were issued by the High Power Committee. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that due to rapid spread of Covid-19 virus

some inmates in the jail were tested positive and therefore, the husband of the

petitioner applied for Covid-19 parole. The Nashik Road Central Prison has

2389 inmates and capacity is of 3018 inmates. In order to decongest to 2/3rd

of its capacity (2012 inmates) it would have to release another 377 inmates

including the accused. It is submitted that the respondent jail authority

rejected the prayer of the accused only on the ground that in past the accused

was only once released, and therefore, his prayer for Covid-19 parole cannot

be considered in view of guidelines laid down by the High Power

Committee.

Bhagyawant Punde
                                           3/4                     CRWP-102-2021(J).doc

4. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for Respondent-State

relied upon the report received from the Nashik Road Central Prison and

submitted that the accused is convicted for serious offence and he has to

undergo life imprisonment for his remaining life. The accused was only once

released on furlough and not on two occasions, as it is necessary in view of

the guidelines laid down by the High Power Committee constituted by the

Government of Maharashtra. It is submitted that the capacity of the jail to

accommodate inmate is 3118 and till date 2297 inmates are in the jail. In

short, submission is that the number of inmates in jail is below the requisite

strength. It is also submitted that, full care is being taken to avoid the spread

of Covid-19 virus, so also everyday there is thermal scanning and also rapid

antigen tests are being conducted. All the precautionary measures are being

taken to avoid any casualty of Covid-19 virus.

5. We have given due consideration to the submissions of the

learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP appearing for State. It is

true the the accused is convicted for serious offences and he has to undergo

sentence for remaining his life. Another ground given by the respondent jail

authority that the accused was only once released on furlough, and therefore,

his prayer for release on Covid-19 parole cannot be considered. This issue

has been dealt with by the Bombay High Court, bench at Aurangabad, in the

Bhagyawant Punde 4/4 CRWP-102-2021(J).doc

case of Kavita w/o Dilip Baviskar v/s. The State of Maharashtra (Coram: T.V.

Nalawade & Shrikant D Kulkarni, JJ), wherein a view is taken that whether

the convict was released on one occasion or twice on parole in past and

reported back in time, had been introduced with an intention to see that the

convict shall return to jail in case he is released on emergency parole. It is

further held in the said case that through the petitioner therein had released

only once on parole in the past, he was entitled to be released on emergency

parole.

6. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to quash and

set aside the impugned order and grant liberty to the accused i.e. husband of

the petitioner to file an fresh application. Accordingly, the impugned order

dated 19.09.2020 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is partly allowed.

Rule made absolute to above extent. The writ petition stands disposed of.

7. In case the accused i.e. husband of the petitioner files application

before the jail authority, the jail authority shall decide the same within three

weeks from filing the said application on its own merits and in accordance

with law.

      ( MANISH PITALE, J.)                                    (S. S. SHINDE, J.)

Bhagyawant Punde