Bombay High Court
Shaikh Majhar S/O. Shaikh Haidar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 23 February, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
948 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 156 OF 2021
Shaikh Majhar s/o Shaikh Haidar C-5334
Age : Major, Occ. Nil, R/o. At present
Harsul Prison, Tq., Dist. Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Home Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent
of the Open prison at
Dist.:- Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
Smt. Sharada P. Chate, Advocate for the petitioner
Smt. V. N. Patil-Jadhav, APP for the respondents/State.
WITH
950 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 163 OF 2021
Kakasaheb s/o Bhanudas Ovhal C-8654
Age : Major, Occ. Nil, R/o. At present
Harsul Prison, Tq., Dist. Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Home Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent
of the Central Jail Harsool
Dist.:- Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
Smt. Sharada P. Chate, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri. R. B. Bagul, APP for the respondents/State.
WITH
951 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 164 OF 2021
Khmrunisa Begum Shaikh Hassn C-9205
Age : Major, Occ. Nil, R/o. At present
Harsul Prison, Tq., Dist. Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER
criwp156.21.odt 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2021 00:25:28 :::
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Home Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent
of the Central Jail Harsool
Dist.:- Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
Smt. Sharada P. Chate, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri. A. V. Deshmukh, APP for the respondents/State.
WITH
952 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 230 OF 2021
Pundlik s/o Ratnappa Nabde,
Convict No. 9281,
Age : 37 years, Occ : Convict,
R/o. Rohidas nagar, Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur
At present confined at Central Prison
Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Superintendent,
Central Prison Aurangabad
Dist.:- Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENT
Shri. Anirudh R. Hange, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for the respondent/State.
WITH
953 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.231 OF 2021
Ramrao s/o Devrao Jadhav C-8444
Age : Major, Occ. Nil, R/o. At present
Harsul Prison, Tq., Dist. Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Home Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent
of the Central Jail Harsool
criwp156.21.odt 2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2021 00:25:28 :::
Dist.:- Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 232 OF 2021
Deorao s/o Ramrao Jadhav C-8746
Age : Major, Occ. Nil, R/o. At present
Harsul Prison, Tq., Dist. Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Home Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent
of the Central Jail Harsool
Dist.:- Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 234 OF 2021
Sulochnabai w/o Ramrao Jadhav C-9023
Age : Major, Occ. Nil, R/o. At present
Harsul Prison, Tq., Dist. Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Home Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent
of the Central Jail Harsool
Dist.:- Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
Smt. Sharada P. Chate, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri. R. B. Bagul, APP for the respondents/State.
WITH
954 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 233 OF 2021
Chandrabhaga w/o Namdeo Jagle C-7999
Age : Major, Occ. Nil, R/o. At present
Harsul Prison, Tq., Dist. Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Home Department
criwp156.21.odt 3 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2021 00:25:28 :::
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent
of the Central Jail Harsool
Dist.:- Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
Smt. Sharada P. Chate, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri. A. V. Deshmukh, APP for the respondents/State.
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATED : 23-02-2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : T. V. NALAWADE, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally with the
consent of the parties for final disposal.
2. All the matters are filed to challenge the orders made by the
respondents by which emergency parole which is permissible under the State
Government Notification dated 08/05/2020 is refused to the petitioners. The
refusal is on the ground that the petitioners had not availed furlough/parole in
the past or on the ground that the petitioner like Chandrabhaga Namdeo
Jagale from Criminal Writ Petition No. 233 of 2021 and Shaikh Majhar s/o
Shaikh Haidar from Criminal Writ Petition No. 156 of 2021 had availed furlough
only on one occasion. There is no other reason given. Other petitioners had
not availed either furlough/parole in the past, prior to the relevant date.
3. There is a condition in aforesaid notification that the prisoner
ought to have availed furlough/parole in the past and on the last two occasions
had returned to the jail on his own. This condition is interpreted by this Court
and this Court has held that the condition is there to ensure that the prisoner
criwp156.21.odt 4 of 5
will return to jail on his own. This Court has held that if the prisoner was
otherwise eligible for getting the benefit of the scheme he cannot be denied
the benefit only on the ground that he had not availed furlough or parole as
per the conditions laid down in the notification. In all these cases the
petitioners were behind bar for more than three years on the relevant date
and so they are entitled to get emergency parole under aforesaid Government
notification. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the orders
made by the respondents cannot sustain in law. In the result all the petitions
are allowed.
4. The orders made against the respondents of rejection of
emergency parole under the Government notification dated 08/05/2020 are
hereby quashed and set aside.
5. The applications which were filed by the petitioners for emergency
parole under aforesaid Government notification stand allowed.
6. All the petitioners are to be released on emergency parole under
the aforesaid Government notification on usual terms and conditions within
seven days from today.
. Rule made absolute in those terms.
[M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.] [T. V. NALAWADE , J.]
ssp
criwp156.21.odt 5 of 5
