Bombay High Court
Ganesh Laxman Puri (C-9069) vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 July, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, S. G. Dige
1 950-CrWP-819-21 Jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 818 OF 2021
Shri Ganesh Laxman Puri,
Convict No.9069,
R/o at present Aurangabad Central Prison,
Aurangabad.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent
of the Central Prison Aurangabad,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.
... Respondents
...
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. J. Salgare
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd JULY, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER V. K. JADHAV, J.) :-
1. We have received this communication in writing from
the convict through Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad. The
same is treated as a criminal writ petition.
2. Heard. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable
forthwith. The learned APP waives notice for respondents-State.
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 22:14:39 :::
2 950-CrWP-819-21 Jud.odt
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The petitioner is a life convict in connection with the
crime / case and the details of his conviction and the period
undergone by him till this date so far is mentioned in the following
tabular form :
Sr. Name Convict No. Period
No.
1. Ganesh Laxman Puri C- 9069 03 Yrs. 00 Months and
(Cri.WP. No.819/2021) 12 Days
5. In terms of the amended Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the
Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959,
respondent No.2 herein has released the petitioner / convict on
Covid Emergency parole. However, while granting him Covid
Emergency parole, the respondent / Superintendent of Central
Prison, Aurangabad has directed the petitioner / convict to furnish
two sureties for an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
thousand only) in addition to the execution of the personal bond.
6. The convict has communicated that he is a poor
person and due to financially weak position he is unable to furnish
two sureties, as directed. The petitioner / convict is ready to
furnish one surety for the like amount and thus prayed that the
condition of furnishing two sureties as directed by the
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 22:14:39 :::
3 950-CrWP-819-21 Jud.odt
respondent / Superintendent of Jail may be modified to that
extent.
7. 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 headed by (Coram : V. K.
Jadhav and M. G. Sewlikar, JJ.) by order dated 09-03-2021 in
Criminal Writ Petition No.340 of 2021, have taken a similar view
and modified the condition to the extent of one surety instead of
two sureties.
8. The learned APP submits that though the rule provides
no specific requirement or guidelines or directions of 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
respondent-State has fairly accepted 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 omitted the
said word "two sureties" 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".
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 22:14:39 :::
4 950-CrWP-819-21 Jud.odt
9. 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 / convict is
the poverty stricken person. He is in jail for a long period. It is
thus difficult either for him or his relatives to make the
arrangement of two sureties. Furthermore, in case of the
petitioner / convict there are only aged parents in the house. On
earlier occassion, this court in the aforesaid two cases has relaxed
the said condition and directed the petitioner / convict 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.
10. The petitioner / convict is a poor person and it is not
possible for him or his relative to make the arrangement of two
sureties.
11. In Criminal Writ Petition Nos.630 of 2021, 631 of
2021, 632 of 2021, 633 of 2021 and 634 of 2021 this Court has
relaxed the said condition and directed the petitioner / convict to
furnish one surety for an amount of Rs.20,000/-, which should be
an independent surety, not relative to the prisoner.
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2021 22:14:39 :::
5 950-CrWP-819-21 Jud.odt
12. In view of the above, we are also inclined to take a
similar view and decide this writ petition in the similar manner.
Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is modified and the petitioner / convict
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 prisoner.
(iii) Rest of the conditions in the impugned order remained as it
is.
(iv) Rule made absolute in the above terms.
(v) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off.
(S. G. DIGE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
SVH
