Bombay High Court
Janabai Ramesh Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 20 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, B. U. Debadwar
1 24to27WP24.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 24 OF 2021
Janabai Ramesh Pawar
Age : Major, Occu : Nil,
R/o. C-9270, Harsool Jail,
Aurangabad. ...Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2] The Deputy Inspector of Police (Prison),
Central Prison, Harsool,
Aurangabad District, Aurangabad.
3] The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison Harsool,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents
.....
Shri. M. M. Parghane, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri. R. B. Bagul, APP for respondent/State
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 43 OF 2021
Aslam s/o Jamadar Ansari
Age : Major, Occu : Nil,
R/o. At present Paithan Open District Prison,
Dist. Aurangabad. ...Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 09:44:57 :::
2 24to27WP24.2021
2] The Superintendent of the Open Prison,
Paithan, District, Aurangabad. ...Respondents
.....
Mrs. Sharda P. Chate, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri. M. M. Nerlikar, APP for respondent/State
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 44 OF 2021
Yogesh s/o Dagdu Mukne,
Age : Major, Occu : 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 Paithan, District, Aurangabad. ...Respondents
.....
Mrs. Sharda P. Chate, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri. B. V. Virdhe, APP for respondent/State
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 46 OF 2021
Shaikh s/o Isa Shaikh Piran
Age : Major, Occu : Nil,
R/o. At present Paithan open Prison,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ...Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 09:44:57 :::
3 24to27WP24.2021
2] The Superintendent of the Paithan Open Prison
at Aurangabad. ...Respondents
.....
Mrs. Sharda P. Chate, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri. M. M. Nerlikar, APP for respondent/State
.....
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE
AND
B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
DATE : 20th January, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT [ Per T. V. Nalawade, J. ] : -
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
both the sides for final disposal.
2. All the proceedings are filed to challenge the orders passed
by the respondents by which emergency parole is refused to the
petitioners. The emergency parole is refused on the ground that they
had not either availed parole or furlough in the past or they had
availed parole or furlough only on one occasion. There is no other
reason for rejection of emergency parole which can be granted under
the State Government Notification dated 08.05.2020.
3. The submissions made and the particulars supplied by the
learned APP show that, all the petitioners have completed the
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 09:44:57 :::
4 24to27WP24.2021
requisite jail term i.e. the jail term of more than three years. They
were eligible for consideration of granting emergency parole. The
aforesaid ground given by respondents is not tenable and that is
considered by this Court. In Government notification, there is a
condition that, the prisoner ought to have availed parole or furlough
in the past at least on two occasions. He ought to have returned to
jail in time. This Court has held that, the said condition is there only
to ensure that the prisoner will return to jail in time, if he is released
on emergency parole. This Court has held that, if the prisoner was
otherwise eligible to get emergency parole but he had not availed
furlough or parole in the past, that circumstance cannot come in his
way to get emergency parole under the aforesaid notification. In the
result, the following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) All the Criminal Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The orders passed by respondents rejecting the
applications of the petitioners for emergency parole are
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The applications which were filed by the petitioners for
emergency parole are hereby allowed. The petitioners
are to be released on emergency parole on usual terms
and conditions within seven days from today.
5 24to27WP24.2021
(iv) In the impugned order challenged by Writ Petition No. 43
of 2021, there was one more condition to refuse the
emergency parole that the petitioner is resident of other
State. The said condition was there in the Government
notification in the past. It appears that, due to that
condition, the emergency parole was refused.
Subsequently, the said condition has been removed by
making amendment in the notification by the
Government. This Court holds that, it is not desirable to
issue direction to the petitioner-Aslam Jamadar Ansari to
approach the Jail Authority again. This will only protract
the things. As this Court is considering the right of the
prisoner, the Court is passing the order in his favour.
4. Rule is made absolute in all the matters in the aforesaid
terms.
[ B. U. DEBADWAR ] [ T. V. NALAWADE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
