Bombay High Court
Sangita W/O. Vilas Avhad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
1 Cri.W.P. No. 1575 & 1617/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
20. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1575 OF 2020
Sangita W/o Vilas Avadh (C-9070),
age 39 years, occupation nil
R/o at present in Harsul Jail, Aurangabad ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through : The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad
2. The Superintendent of Jail
Harsul Jail, Aurangabad ...Respondents
Mr. Dhanraj S. Ingole, Advocate, h/f. Ms. Varsha S. Ghanekar,
Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. V.N. Patil-Jadhav, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respts. /State
AND
21. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1617 OF 2020
Gajanan S/o Hanumantu Chincholkar (C-8949)
age major occupation nil
R/o at present Harsul Prison
Taluka & Dit. Aurangabad ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Harsul District Aurangabad ...Respondents
Mrs. Sharda P. Chate, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. B.V. Virdhe, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respts./State
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 16:06:23 :::
2 Cri.W.P. No. 1575 & 1617/2020
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 13th 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. Both the proceedings are filed to challenge the orders
made by the respondents by which emergency parole is refused to
the petitioners. Emergency parole to the petitioner in Cri. Writ
Petition No. 1617/2020 is refused on the ground that the petitioner
was released on furlough only on one occasion and as he has not
availed furlough or parole on two occasions, he cannot be given
benefit of the Government Notification dated 8th May 2020. In the
second proceeding - Cri. W.P. No. 1575/2020 reason for refusal of
furlough or parole is given that the petitioner had not availed either
parole or furlough even on single occasion.
3. The submissions made today show that both the
petitioners have completed the jail term of more than four years six
months. This Court had an occasion to consider and interpret the
Government Notification dated 8 th May 2020. There is a condition in
the notification that a prisoner ought to have availed either parole
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 16:06:23 :::
3 Cri.W.P. No. 1575 & 1617/2020
or furlough in the past and at least on last two occasions and he
ought to have returned to jail on his own. This Court has held that
such condition is there to ensure that the prisoner will return to jail
in time on his own when the parole period is over. This Court has
further held that if a prisoner was otherwise eligible to get
emergency parole under this notification then the circumstance that
in the past he had not availed furlough or parole, cannot come in his
way to get benefit of the notification. This Court holds that the
orders made by the respondents cannot sustain in law. In the
result, following order.
ORDER
I) Both the petitions are allowed. Orders made by the
respondents are hereby quashed and set aside. The
petitioners are to be released on emergency parole
under the Government Notification dated 8th May 2020
on usual terms and conditions within seven days from
today.
II. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.
III. Authenticated copy of the order is allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
( M.G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V. NALAWADE )
JUDGE JUDGE
Madkar
