Sanjay S/O Digamber Sukhdeve vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1021 Bom

                                          1                              wp45.21




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


             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 45 OF 2021


Sanjay s/o. Digamber Sukhdeve,
Aged about 25 years, r/o.
At Post Kurkheda, District
Gadchiroli (Convict No.
C/9655, at present at Nagpur
Central Prison).                          ..........      PETITIONER

 // Versus //


1. The Deputy Inspector General of
   Prison, East Region, Nagpur.

2.The Superintendent of Prisons,
   Nagpur Central Prison,
   Nagpur.                                ..........       RESPONDENTS


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
         Ms S.B.Khobragade, Advocate for the petitioner.
        Ms Tajwar Khan, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


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

                                      DATE    : 15.1.2021.





                                          2                               wp45.21

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



1.        Rule, made returnable forthwith.       Heard finally with the

consent of Ms S.B.Khobragade, learned Counsel for the petitioner

and Ms Tajwar Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who

waives service for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. The reason why we have taken up this matter for final

hearing forthwith is that emergency parole has been sought by the

petitioner for the purpose of his attending marriage of his brother

and only one day of parole has been demanded by the petitioner.

The marriage is scheduled to be solemnized on 17.1.2021 and today

being the 15th day of January, 2021, it would be too late for the

petitioner if no immediate hearing is granted to him.

3. On going through the impugned order, it is found that, in

principle, the Authority has considered the petitioner as eligible for

being released on emergency parole of one day. But, while

exercising discretion in his favour, the Authority, instead of putting a

condition of petitioner's visit daily to Police Station, the Authority has

directed that the petitioner shall be released on one day parole

under police bandobast, the expenses of which would be borne by

the petitioner. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner,

3 wp45.21

imposition of such a condition is virtual denial of emergency parole

to the petitioner as the total cost of police bandobast comes to

Rs.1,50,000/- for one day. Since this statement has been made by

the learned Counsel for the petitioner and appears to have been

made with all sense of responsibility, we accept the same.

4. Now if it is to be believed that the expenses for police

bandobast to be borne by the petitioner comes to about

Rs.1,50,000/-, it would have to be inferred that grant of emergency

parole to the petitioner is nothing but an illusion created for the

petitioner and that the petitioner would not really be in a position to

witness one of the joyous occasions in his family. The impugned

order notes the fact that the petitioner has never been released

earlier, either on parole or furlough and therefore, the conduct of

petitioner, in terms of his respect for the conditions stipulated in the

order of release either on parole or furlough, is yet to be tested. But,

at the same time, it is seen from the impugned order that there is no

adverse remark expressed therein about the conduct of the

petitioner. If this is so, we are of the view that the petitioner can be

considered to be released on one day's emergency parole by

imposing alternative condition.

5. The alternative condition is to be found in Rule 19(1)(B) of

4 wp45.21

the The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and it is

to the effect that a prisoner can be released with a condition to

report daily to the local Police Station depending upon the crime

committed by him and his conduct during the stay. This condition

stands as an alternative to the first condition of release under police

escort, the expenses of which are to be borne by the concerned

prisoner.

6. As stated by us earlier, there is nothing adverse mentioned

in the impugned order about the conduct of petitioner and therefore,

we take his conduct as of now as good. As regards the crime

committed by the petitioner, going by sentence of imprisonment

imposed upon him, which is ten years in the present case, we do not

think that the petitioner could be considered to be such a hopeless

prisoner as not to deserve to be reposed faith in him by the law

enforcing machinery.

7. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the

petitioner can be released on the alternative condition.

8. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is

hereby quashed and set aside only to the extent it imposes a

condition of police bandobast at the cost of petitioner. Now we direct

5 wp45.21

that the petitioner be released on emergency parole for one day on

17.1.2021 on the following conditions :

a) that the petitioner shall report to Police Station,

Sakkardhara at 3.00 p.m. on 17.1.2021.

b) the petitioner shall execute a P.R. bond of

Rs.20,000/-.

c) the petitioner shall surrender himself before the

jail Authorities latest by 5.00 p.m. of 17.1.2021.

Copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for

the respective parties.

                                           JUDGE                    JUDGE

ssjaiswal