Bombay High Court
Chapnya Nkulya @ Mahakulya Bhosle ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 July, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shivkumar Ganpatrao Dige
crwp703.21
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
926 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.703 OF 2021
Chapnya Nkulya @ Mahakulya Bhosle (C-8990)
Age 60 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. At present Harsul Prison
Tq. and District Aurangabad. ...Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Home department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Superintendent of the
Central prison, Harsool,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad ...Respondents
.....
Advocate for Petitioner : Ms. Chate Sharada P.
APP for Respondent-State: Mr. S. P. Deshmukh
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATED : 2nd JULY, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT:- (PER V. K. JADHAV, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
finally at admission stage.
2. The petitioner is a life convict for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of I.P.C. and till today he has undergone five years
imprisonment.
3. In terms of the amended Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Maharashtra
Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the respondent
No.2 herein has released the petitioner on Covid Emergency parole.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 22:55:06 :::
crwp703.21
-2-
However, while granting him Covid Emergency parole, the
respondent / Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad has
directed the petitioner to furnish two sureties for an amount of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) in addition to the
execution of personal bond.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a poverty stricken person and due to weak financial
position, he is unable to furnish two sureties as directed. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in addition to the
same, due to outbreak of Covid-19, it is also not possible for the
petitioner to furnish two sureties. There are travel restrictions inter-
se districts and it is thus difficult for him to request the sureties to
furnish sureties for him by crossing the distance. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that even though there is no
provision and requirement in the Rules directing the petitioner to
furnish two sureties while granting Covid Emergency parole, the
Superintendent of Jail has directed the petitioner to furnish two
sureties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner may be granted Covid Emergency parole by relaxing the
stringent condition imposed by the respondent / Superintendent of
Jail, Aurangabad directing him to furnish two sureties. The petitioner
is ready to furnish one surety for the like amount and in view of the
same, the condition of furnishing two sureties as directed by the
respondent / Superintendent of Jail may be modified to that extent.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 22:55:06 :::
crwp703.21
-3-
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier
occassion, this Court (Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge and B. U.
Debadwar, JJ.) by order dated 16.03.2021 in Criminal Writ Petition
No.257 of 2021 and the Division Bench (Coram : V. K. Jadhav and
M. G. Sewlikar, JJ.) by order 09.03.2021 in Criminal Writ Petition
No.340 of 2021 has taken a similar view and modified the condition
to the extent of one surety instead of two.
6. The learned APP submits that though the Rules provide no
specific requirement or guidelines or directions for furnishing two
sureties by the convict while releasing him on Covid Emergency
parole, however, the same is left at the discretion of the authority
concerned. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State
fairly accepts that it was a requirement of furnishing two sureties in
the notification issued by the Home Department dated 26.08.2016,
however, in the notification dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Home
Department, Mumbai, the said words "two sureties" are omitted and
instead of that, in Rule 24A, it is mentioned that "the parole may be
granted to a prisoner subject to his executing a surety bond in Form
A, a Personal Bond in Form B".
7. It thus appears that the respondent / Superintendent of Jail,
Aurangabad, in terms of the old notification dated 26.08.2016, has
directed the convict to furnish two sureties while granting him Covid
Emergency parole. The petitioner is a poverty stricken person. He is
in jail for a long period. It is thus difficult either for him or his relatives
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 22:55:06 :::
crwp703.21
-4-
to make arrangement of two sureties. On earlier occassion, this court
in the aforesaid two cases relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has relaxed the said condition and
directed the petitioners therein to furnish one surety for an amount of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) which should be an
independent surety, not relative to the prisoner.
8. In view of the above, we are inclined to take a similar view and
decide this writ petition in the similar manner. Hence, the following
order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is modified and the petitioner is directed to
execute a Personal Bond of Rs.10,000/- and one surety of
Rs.20,000/- which should be an independent surety, not
relative to the petitioner.
(iii) Rest of the conditions in the impugned order remain as it is.
(iv) Rule made absolute in the above terms.
(v) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(S. G. DIGE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
