Bombay High Court
Omkar S/O Uttarreshwar Dhage ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 July, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shivkumar Ganpatrao Dige
1 964-CriWP-619-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 619 OF 2021
JAGDISH SHRIRAM PAWAR (C-8397) AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. J. Salgare
...
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 710 OF 2021
AJIT DILIP VEER (CONVICT NO. 8854)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. M. M. Nerlikar
...
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2021
VIJAY VILASRAO SUTARE (CONVICT NO. 8986)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. M. M. Nerlikar
...
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 715 OF 2021
SOPAN VITTHAL KAJALKAR (CONVICT NO. 9217)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. J. Salgare
...
AND
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2021 03:43:45 :::
2 964-CriWP-619-21.odt
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 716 OF 2021
OMKAR UTTARRESHWAR DHAGE (CONVICT NO. 8807)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde
...
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 721 OF 2021
GOVIND SHIVAJI RANER (CONVICT NO. 8743)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. S. Shinde
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 14th JULY, 2021
PER COURT :-
1. Heard both sides.
2. Learned counsel Mr. Jaiswal for the petitioners has pointed
out that the Full Bench was constituted under the order of the Chief
Justice and the Full Bench has framed following two questions for
determination -
" (i) Which of the interpretation of Rule 19(1) sub-rule (C) as
brought about by the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai
Furlough and Parole (Amendment) Rules, 2020, either as
made in decision of the Division Bench in Vijendra
Malaram Ranwa Versus State of Maharashtra and another
or the decision of the Division Bench in Sardar s/o.
Shawali Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra and
another, is the correct interpretation?
3 964-CriWP-619-21.odt
(ii) Whether the provisions of 'emergency parole' as brought
about by the amendment to Rule 19(1) by insertion of
sub-rule (c) by the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai
Furlough and Parole (Amendment) Rules, 2020 would
cover prisoners convicted under the provisions of the
Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(for short 'the POCSO Act')? "
Question No. (ii) is relevant for the present discussion.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in
paragraph No. 27 of the Judgment of Full Bench in the case of Pintu
Uttam Sonale Versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 2021 All MR (Cri)
822, question No. (ii) is answered as " the provisions of emergency parole
as brought about by amendment to Rule 19(1) by incorporation of sub-
rule (C) read with its proviso would cover prisoners convicted under the
provisions of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act,
2012."
4. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioners, on
instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the present petitions.
5. Leave granted. The Criminal Writ Petitions are dismissed as
withdrawn.
( S. G. DIGE ) ( V. K. JADHAV )
JUDGE JUDGE
mtk
