Navshad @ Naishad Makrani Batla ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 171 Bom

                                      1                       934-CriWP-1626-20.odt



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1626 OF 2020

Navshad @ Naishad S/o Makrani Batla,
Convict No. 323,
Age : 30 years, Occ. Convict,
R/o: At present confined
at Open Prison Visapur, Tal. Shrigondha,
Dist. Ahmednagar.                                     ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Superintendent,
Open Prison Visapur, Tal Shrigondha,
Dist. Ahmednagar.                                   ...RESPONDENT
                          ...
Mr. Rupesh a. Jaiswal, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, APP for respondent- State
                          ...
                          CORAM       :      T. V. NALAWADE AND
                                             M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATE : 5th JANUARY, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per : T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent heard both the

sides for final disposal.

2. The present proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by

respondent by which emergency parole, which is permissible under State

Government Notification dated 08-05-2020 is refused. The application is

rejected on the ground that till the date of application the petitioner had

not at all availed either furlough or parole. He was behind bar for more

than seven years on the relevant date. In Government Notification dated

08-05-2020, there is condition for getting benefit of scheme and it shows

that in the past prisoner ought to have availed either furlough or parole

and on last two occasions, he ought to have returned to jail on his own in

time.

2 934-CriWP-1626-20.odt

3. This Court had occasion to consider and interpret the aforesaid

condition from the Government Notification in Criminal Writ Petition No.

571 of 2020 (Kavita W/o Dilip Baviskar (Dilip S/o Kishor Baviskar) Versus

The State of Maharashtra, decided on 30th June, 2020. This Court has held

that aforesaid condition is there to ensure that the prisoner will return to

jail on his own after parole period is over. This Court has held that if

prisoner was otherwise eligible to get benefit of the scheme as per rules

and if he had completed three years jail term, if he is life convict then

benefit needs to be given to him. This Court holds that the relief claimed

by the petitioner-prisoner needs to be granted. In view of such

interpretation, this Court holds that the order of rejection of emergency

parole by respondent cannot sustain in law.

4. In the result, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. The order made

by respondent refusing the emergency parole to the petitioner is hereby

quashed and set aside. The application, which is filed for emergency

parole by the petitioner is hereby allowed. The respondent is hereby

directed to release the petitioner-prisoner on emergency parole in view of

Government Notification dated 08-05-2020 subject to usual terms and

conditions, within seven days from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is

made absolute in above terms.

5. The Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Authenticated copy is allowed to both the sides.

      [ M.G. SEWLIKAR ]                                         [ T. V. NALAWADE ]
           JUDGE                                                       JUDGE
MTK