Bombay High Court
Thakuba Tukaram Bhagwat (C-8350) vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
-1-
criwp1620.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1620 OF 2020
Thakuba s/o Tukaram Bhagwat C-8350
age major, occ. 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 Central Prison, Harsool
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
Mrs. S.P. Chate, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, APP for both respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1623 OF 2020
Bharat s/o Babulal Gulge 5338
age major, occ. 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
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 13:22:34 :::
-2-
criwp1620.20.odt
Mrs. S.P. Chate, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. B.V. Virdhe, APP for both respondents.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1624 OF 2020
Hariomdash s/o Govinddas Bainade C-9096
age major, occ. 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 Central Prison, Harsool
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
Mrs. S.P. Chate, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, APP for both respondents.
CORAM : T.V. Nalawade &
M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.
DATE : 12th January, 2021.
JUDGMENT : ( Per T.V. Nalawade, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. By consent, heard both the sides for fnal disposal.
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 13:22:34 :::
-3-
criwp1620.20.odt
3. All the three matters are fled to challenge the orders
made by respondents by which emergency parole is refused to the
petitioners/prisoners. Petitioners had fled applications for
emergency parole under State Government Notifcation dated 8 th May,
2020. The reason given for rejection is that the petitioner in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 1620/2020 had availed furlough on one occasion
and not on two occasions which is a requirement of aforesaid
notifcation. Applications of petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.
1623/2020 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 1624/2020 are rejected on
the ground that they had not availed either furlough or parole in the
past.
4. In the matter of Kavita w/o Dilip Baviskar Vs. State of
Maharashtra Decided on 30.06.2020, this Court has interpreted the
conditions given in the aforesaid Government notifcation. This
Court has held that the condition that the prisoner ought to have
availed either furlough or parole in the past and he ought to have
returned to jail in time on last two occasions is there to ensure that
the prisoner will return to jail on his own in time after emergency
parole period is over. This Court has further held that the
circumstance that the prisoner had not availed furlough or parole in
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 13:22:34 :::
-4-
criwp1620.20.odt
the past cannot come in his way if he was otherwise eligible during
that period to get furlough or parole. In view of this interpretation,
this Court holds that the orders made by the respondents cannot
sustain in law. In the result, following order is passed :-
ORDER
1. All the three petitions are allowed.
2. Impugned orders rejecting emergency parole
are hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Applications fled by petitioners for
emergency parole under Government Notifcation
dated 8th May, 2020, are hereby allowed.
4. Petitioners be released on emergency parole
on usual terms and conditions within seven days
from today.
5. Rule made absolute in those terms.
6. Authenticated copy of the order is allowed to
both the sides.
( M. G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V. NALAWADE )
Judge Judge
dyb
