Bombay High Court
Ramesh Laximan More (C-5313) vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 14 July, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, S. G. Dige
1 945-CriWP-383-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 383 OF 2021
Ramesh S/o Laximan More, C-5313
Age 47 years, Occupation Nil,
R/o. At present Paithan Open Prison,
District Aurangabad .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Home Department
Mantryala Mumbai
2. The Superintendent of the Open Prison
at Paithan, District Aurangabad .. Respondents
...
Mrs. Sharada P. Chate, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, APP for respondents - State
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 14th JULY, 2021
JUDGMENT ( PER : S. G. Dige, J. ) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
finally at admission stage.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order
dated 2nd March 2021, passed by respondent No. 2 - the Superintendent,
Open Prison at Paithan, District Aurangabad, by which emergency parole
is refused to the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2021 07:25:14 :::
2 945-CriWP-383-21.odt
3. The petitioner had filed an application for emergency parole
under Government Notification, dated 8 th May 2020. The said
application came to be rejected by respondent No. 2 on the ground that
petitioner is not entitled to release on emergency parole, wherein, he
had not availed leave on two occasions, he had not availed single leave
and further the reason for not granting parole application is that
shortage of prisoners as the most of them are on leave.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order passed
by respondent No. 2 is unreasonable, absurd and also against Article 14
(right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life liberty) of the Constitution
of India. The petitioner is eligible for emergency parole leave as per
Government Notification, dated 8th May 2020. But, without considering
this fact, respondent No.2 rejected the same, hence, it is necessary to
quash and set aside the impugned order.
5. Learned APP appearing for respondents-authorities submits
that the order passed by respondent authority is reasonable and as per
the Government Notification, dated 8th May, 2020.
6. The petitioner has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC")
vide Judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palghar,
dated 4th December 2017 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for
::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2021 07:25:14 :::
3 945-CriWP-383-21.odt
life. He has undergone more than eight years sentence at Paithan Open
Prison, Paithan, District Aurangabad.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita w/o
Dilip Baviskar Versus State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Writ Petition No.
571 of 2020, decided on 30-06-2020 has interpreted the condition
given in the aforesaid notification. This Court has held that the prisoner
had not availed furlough or parole in the past cannot come 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 order passed by
respondent No. 2 cannot sustain in law. In the result, following order is
passed.
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 2nd March 2021 passed by respondent No. 2
rejecting emergency parole is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The application filed by the petitioner for emergency parole under
Government Notification dated 8th May 2020 is hereby allowed.
(iv) The petitioner be released on emergency parole on usual terms
and conditions within seven days from the date of this order.
(v) Rule made absolute in the above terms.
(vi) Authenticated copy of the order is allowed to both sides.
( S. G. DIGE ) ( V. K. JADHAV )
JUDGE JUDGE
mtk
