Sanjay Mahadeo Gajbhiye vs State Of Mah. Thr. Superintendent ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3517 Bom

 Judgment                                 1                         Cri.W.P.173.2021.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 173 OF 2021

          Sanjay Mahadeo Gajbhiye, C-5109,
          Aged about 43 years, 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 Region,
       Nagpur.                               .... RESPONDENTS
  ______________________________________________________________
      Ms Ragini Zarbade, Advocate h/f Shri S. D. Chande, Advocate for
      the petitioner.
      Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, Addl.P.P. for the respondents.
 ______________________________________________________________

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

DATED : 24.02.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard Ms Ragini Zarbade, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, learned Addl.P.P. who appears by

waiving notice for the respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Judgment 2 Cri.W.P.173.2021.odt

3. In the present case, it is not any dispute that on last of the

two releases from prison, the petitioner had reported back to the Prison

Authorities late by 49 days. If this is so, the petitioner would not be

entitled to avail of Covid-19 parole leave in terms of the G.R. dated

08.05.2020. One of the essential conditions of the G.R. is that, if any

prisoner has been released on two occasions or more, it would be

necessary for such a prisoner to have reported back to the Prison

Authorities well in time on the last two releases out of all the releases.

In the present case, the petitioner had been released twice and on one

of them, which was the last one, the petitioner had admittedly

surrendered himself before the Prison Authorities after a delay of 49

days. Such being the factual situation of the present case, we do not

think that any infirmity could be found in the order impugned herein.

For this very reason, the view taken by Co-ordinate Division Bench at

Aurangabad in the case of Guddu @ Kansha Wahab Shaikh Vs. The

State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 1896 of 2020, decided

on 26.10.2020, would not be applicable to the present case. Therefore,

we find no merit in this petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

            (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)                (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)


 Kirtak