Bombay High Court
Subhadra Bhau Gurav Mother Of ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 20 July, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
902-wp-2547-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2547 OF 2021
Subhadra Bhau Gurav
(Mother of convict Yogesh Bhau Gurav) ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
Ms. Harjeet Kaur, for the Petitioner
Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATE : JULY 20, 2021
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per N.J.Jamadar,J.)
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent
of the counsels for the parties heard fnalll.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
preferred to quash and set aside the order dated 4 th June, 2021
passed bl respondent No. 2 wherebl the application of the convict
Yogesh Bhau Gurav, son of the petitioner, for release on
emergencl parole under Rule 19(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Prisons
(Bombal Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (Rules, 1959) came to
the rejected.
Vishal Parekar 1/5
::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 05:55:19 :::
902-wp-2547-2021.doc
3. The petitioner's son Yogesh Bhau Gurav has been convicted
for the offence punishable under section 302, 149, 120B, 143 and
148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life. He is in custodl since 18 th Januarl, 2010.
The convict preferred an application to release him on emergencl
parole in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic, in accordance with the
provision contained in Rule 19(1)(c)(ii) of the Rules, 1959. The
application came to be rejected bl respondent No. 4 bl the
impugned order dated 4th June, 2021 for the reason that the
convict has reported late to prison bl 45 dals when he was
released on furlough in the lear 2017.
4. We have heard Smt. Harjeet Kaur, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for the
respondents.
5. A report is tendered for the perusal of the Court todal. A
chart containing the details of the period of imprisonment
actualll undergone bl the petitioner is annexed thereto.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the onll
Vishal Parekar 2/5
::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 05:55:19 :::
902-wp-2547-2021.doc
ground on which the request of the convict for release on
emergencl parole in accordance with the provisions contained in
Rule 19(1)(c)(ii) of the Prison Rules, came to be rejected, was the
delaled reporting bl 43 dals when the convict was released on
furlough on the previous occasion. The said ground in the
circumstances of the case, according to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, is not sustainable as, on the one hand, the convict
has alreadl undergone 11 lears 4 months actual imprisonment
and, on the other hand, for the delaled reporting the convict was
awarded penaltl of deduction of 215 dals remission. The rejection
of the praler for release on emergencl parole on the said count
would cause serious prejudice to the convict, urged Ms. Kaur.
7. It is true that rule 19(1)(c)(ii) of the Rules, 1959 provides that
to become eligible to be released on the emergencl parole, the
prisoner should have returned to the prison on due date on two
previous occasions of release, either on parole or furlough.
However, the said rule can not be construed dehors the facts of a
given case.
8. In the instant case, we fnd that the convict has alreadl
Vishal Parekar 3/5
::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 05:55:19 :::
902-wp-2547-2021.doc
undergone a substantial period of actual imprisonment of 11
lears and 4 months. For the delaled reporting of 43 dals, he has
been saddled with the penaltl of deduction of 215 dals of
remission. Having regard to the object of introduction of the
provision of emergencl parole, in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic,
in our view, it would be expedient to extend the beneft of the said
provision to the convict. We are, thus, inclined to allow the
petition. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
a] The petition stands allowed.
b] The order passed bl respondent No. 2 dated 4 th June, 2021
rejecting application for emergencl parole stands quashed.
c] The respondent No. 2 shall pass the order of release of the
convict Yogesh Bhau Gurav on emergencl Covid parole in
accordance with the Rule 19(1)(c) of the Prison Rules, on usual
terms and conditions which respondent No. 4 mal fnd suitable in
the circumstances of the case.
d] The convict shall abide bl the conditions which mal be
imposed bl respondent No. 4.
e] Necessarl order be passed on or before 27th Jull, 2021.
Vishal Parekar 4/5
902-wp-2547-2021.doc
f] Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
g] All concerned shall act on an authenticated copl of this
order.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Vishal Parekar 5/5
