Anil Jagannath Yadav vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 9735 Bom

              Digitally signed by
LAXMIKANT     LAXMIKANT
              GOPAL
GOPAL         CHANDAN
CHANDAN       Date: 2021.07.26                                        (8) cri.wp-2493.21.odt
              18:37:13 +0530




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2493 OF 2021


        Anil Jagannath Yadav                                 ]
        Age 29 years                                         ]
        Row House No.03, Sai Row House,                      ]
        Upendra Nagar, Cidco, Nashik                         ]
        (presently lodged in Nashik Road Central Prison      ]
        (At presently out on Parole Leave)                   ]..... Petitioner

                 versus

        The State of Maharashtra                             ]
        Through the Superintendent of Jail                   ]
        (Nashik Road Central Prison                          ]
        Jail Road, Nashik 422101                             ]..... Respondent.

Mr. Bharat K Manghani for the Petitioner.

Mrs. A S Pai, PP for the Respondent/State.

                                    CORAM :       S. S. SHINDE,
                                                  N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

                                    DATE     :    26th JULY 2021

        ORAL JUDGMENT (PER N. J. JAMADAR, J)



        .               Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the

        counsel for the parties, heard finally.



        2               The Petitioner has preferred this Petition for quashing and setting

aside the order dated 31st May 2021 passed by the Superintendent of Prison,

lgc 1 of 4 (8) cri.wp-2493.21.odt

Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik i.e. the Respondent No.1 whereby the

Petitioner was directed to surrender on 16 th July 2021 after completion of the

period of 45 days from the day on which the Petitioner was released on

emergency parole by order dated 31st May 2021 by invoking the provisions

contained in Rule 19(1)(c) of the Prisons ( Bombay Furlough and Parole)

Rules 1959.

3 The substance of the Petition is that the direction for surrendering

the Petitioner, after expiry of 1 st period of 45 days, while notification issued

under the Epidemics Act still remains in force, is in breach of the Rule 19(1)(c)

of the Prisons ( Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 which mandates

that the said period be extended by a further period of 30 days at a time or till

the notification issued under the Epidemic Act remains in force.

4 It appears that during pendency of this Petition, the Petitioner has

surrendered on 16th July 2021 in accordance with the impugned order.

However, the fact remains that the Petitioner had sought extension of the

period of Covid-19 Emergency Parole by a block of 30 days.

5 A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nagnath s/o Sakharam

Mane v/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr. in Criminal Application No.4118

of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2019 has held that it is not obligatory for

lgc 2 of 4 (8) cri.wp-2493.21.odt

a prisoner, who released on emergency parole, to file an application for

extension of parole. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 19(1)(c), the

authorities are required to extend the period by a block of 30 days at a time.

In paragraphs 41 and 42 of the said judgment, the Full Bench has held as

under :-

"41. It emerges that -

(a) -----------

(b) it is not that necessarily prisoner would have to make an application seeking extension of emergency parole prior to completion of initial parole of forty five days as well as even for further extensions in blocks of thirty days till the notification under the ED Act is in force.

42. Issues referred to us are answered as under:

1. -------

2. Under the language employed in the text of rule 19 (1) (C) (i) in second sentence, by auto operation the emergency parole gets extended obviating an application for its extension."

6 Moreover, the Supreme Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1

of 2020 by its order dated 16th July 2021 passed certain directions to arrest the

spread of infection. In continuation of earlier directions to arrest the spread of

infection, the Supreme Court passed, inter-alia, the following directions :-

"So far as those prisoners who have already been released on bail from the prison by virtue of Orders passed by this Court from time to time and on the basis

lgc 3 of 4 (8) cri.wp-2493.21.odt

of recommendations of High Powered Committees constituted for the purpose are concerned, they shall not be asked to surrender to the prison, until further orders"

7 In the aforesaid view of the matter, in our view, it may not been

appropriate to again direct the Petitioner to make an application for releasing

him on emergency parole The fact that the Petitioner has surrendered on his

own in accordance with the impugned order dated 31 st May 2021, underscores

the bonafide of the Petitioner. Conversely, it indicates that the authorities had

not taken steps to secure the presence of the Petitioner. We are therefore

persuaded to direct the Respondent - Jail Authority to pass appropriate order

of release of the Petitioner on emergency parole in continuation of the order

dated 31st May 2021 on usual terms and conditions as the Respondent -

Superintendent of Prison Nashik may find suitable in the facts of the case.

8 The Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J]                                       [S. S. SHINDE , J]




lgc                                                                           4 of 4