Bombay High Court
Shivraj Hanmanta Potphale And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
1 Cri.W.P. No. 944/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
120 CRIIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1672 OF 2020
1. Shivraj S/o Hanmanta Potphale,
Age : 36 Years, Occ. Agriclture,
2. Hanmanta S/o Malikarjun Potphale,
Age : 86 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
Both R/o. Village Shevdi ( Bz),
Tq. Loha District Nanded.
( At present is in Harsool Central Jail,
Aurangabad) ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Superintendent,
Aurangabad Central Prison,
Aurangabad.
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. B. G. Deshmukh
A.P.P for Respondent- State : Mr. G. O. Wattamwar
::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 10:16:00 :::
2 Cri.W.P. No. 944/2020
....
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 11th January, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
both the sides for fnal disposal.
2. Present proceeding is fled by two petitioners to challenge
the order of rejection of emergency parole which is permissable
under the State Government notifcation dated 8.5.2020.
Petitioner No.2 Hanmanta S/o Malikarjun Potphale, had not
completed three years of jail term on the relevant date. In view
of the conditions laid down in aforesaid Government notifcation
no error is committed by the respondent in rejecting the
application of Hanmanta S/o Malikarjun Potphale and so it is
not possible to make interference in the order passed by the
respondents against petitioner No.2 Hanmanta S/o Malikarjun
Potphale.
::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 10:16:00 :::
3 Cri.W.P. No. 944/2020
3. The application of petitioner No.1 Shivaraj is rejected by
observing that he had not availed either parole or fulough on
any occasion in the past. The submissions made by the learned
A.P.P show that Shivaraj had completed eight years of jail term
on the relevant date. This Court had occasion to interpret the
condition given in the aforesaid government notifcation.
There is a condition that Prisoner ought to have availed either
parole of furlough in the past and on last two occasions and he
ought to have returned into jail on his own after availing either
furlough or parole. This Court has held that the condition is
there only to ensure that after parole period is over, a prisoner
will return back in time on his own, if relief is granted to him.
This Court has held that this condition will not come in the way
of prisoner who was otherwise eligible to get beneft of the
furlough or parole but who had not availed furlough or parole
in the past.
4. In view of this position, this Court holds that Shivaraj is
entitled to get beneft of the scheme given under the
Government notifcation dated 8.5.2020. Order made against
him cannot sustain in law. In the result, following order.
::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 10:16:00 :::
4 Cri.W.P. No. 944/2020
ORDER
I. The petition of Hanmanta S/o Malikarjun Potphale
stands rejected.
II. The petition of petitioner No.2 Shivraj S/o Hanmanta
Potphale stands allowed. The order of rejection of
emergency parole or furloguh made against him is
quashed and set-aside. He is to be released on
emergency parole on usual terms and conditions,
within seven days from today.
III. Rule made absolute in those terms in favour of
petitioner No.2 Shivraj S/o Hanmanta Potphale
only.
IV. Authenticated copy is allowed.
( M.G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V. NALAWADE )
JUDGE JUDGE
Y.S. Kulkarni
