Bombay High Court
Atik Ahmed Sheikh Nazir vs State Of Mah. Thr. Superintendent ... on 22 February, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
13 wp 170-21.odt- 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 170 OF 2021
PETITIONER :- Atik Ahmed Sheikh Nazir,
C-3132, Aged About 45 years
Occup. Nil. (Presently in Central Prison
Amravati).
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.R.L.Kadu, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.N. Tripathi, APP for the State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 22.02.2021.
ORAL J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.)
1 Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Kavita
13 wp 170-21.odt- 2/4
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who appears by waiving
notice for the respondents.
3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on the
ground that it is based upon a wrong reason of the petitioner
surrendering before the jail authorities not in time on two
occasions. According to him, the petitioner was lastly released on
19.03.2015 and also on 18.01.2020, out of which, the petitioner
had admittedly reported back to the jail authorities on the due
date on one occasion, though the petitioner had reported back to
the jail authorities in the year 2015 belatedly, and the delay was of
285 days. According to him, if the petitioner had surrendered on
the due date, on any one occasion out of the last two occasions,
the petitioner becomes entitled to be released on Covid-19 parole
according to G.R dated 08.05.2020.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance
upon the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated
30.06.2020, rendered in Criminal Writ Petition No.571 of 2020
and judgment dated 04.08.2020 and also few more judgments,
copies of which he has annexed to this petition. The other
judgments have been delivered respectively on 10.07.2020 in
Kavita
13 wp 170-21.odt- 3/4
Criminal Writ Petition No.627 of 2020, 04.08.2020 in LD-VC-
Criminal Writ Petition No.345 of 2020 and in LD-VC- Criminal
Writ Petition No.370 of 2020, 04.08.2020 in Criminal Writ
Petition No.761 of 2020, 18.08.2020 in Criminal Writ Petition
No.310 of 2020, 25.08.2020 in Criminal Writ Petition No.247 of
2020, 28.08.2020 in Criminal Writ Petition (ASDB-LD-VC)
No.265 of 2020 , 26.10.2020 in Criminal Application No.1896 of
2020 , 10.12.2020 in Criminal Writ Petition St. No.2592 of 2020
and in Criminal Writ Petition St. No.3484 of 2020.
5. Ms. Tripathi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
respondents submits that all these judgments are on a point when
no occasion to show compliance with the condition of reporting in
time to the jail authorities on each of the last two releases did
arise, then such condition of the G.R. dated 08.05.2020 would not
apply.
6. On going through these judgments, we find a great
substance in the argument of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and
therefore, we hold that the condition which prescribes that in
order to be eligible for Covid-19 parole, in addition to fulfillment
of the other conditions stated in the G.R dated 08.05.2020, a
Kavita
13 wp 170-21.odt- 4/4
prisoner must also have reported back to the jail authorities well
in time on each of the occasions of his last two releases would
have to be fulfilled only if the petitioner had been released earlier
on two or more occasions. It would also be applicable if the
petitioner had been released earlier only on one occasion, but in a
limited way in the sense that his conduct would be judged by
considering his timely or untimely surrender before jail or on the
last occasion.
7. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had
been released at least on 15 occasions and the last two of the
occasions were those which arose on 19.03.2015 and 18.01.2020.
While, the petitioner had surrendered well in time, on the
occasion of 18.01.2020, he was late in surrendering by 285 days
on the occasion of 19.03.2015. So, it is clear that the petitioner
did not fulfill one of the criteria of G.R. dated 08.05.2020 and
therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the impugned order. The
petition is dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kavita
