Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8212 Bom
Judgement Date : 21 June, 2021
Judgment
wp435.21 15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.435 OF 2021
Akshay s/o Balu Junghare,
Aged about 35 years, r/o
Shnishignapur, tahsil Daryapur,
district Amravati.
(C-5345 - Presently at Central
Prison, Amravati). ..... Petitioner.
:: V E R S U S ::
Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati, District
Amravati. ..... Respondent.
===================================
Shri S.D.Chande, Counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.N.R.Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/
State.
===================================
CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, &
AMIT B.BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 21, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Amit B.Borkrar, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel Shri S.D.Chande for the
petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Mrs.N.R.Tripathi for the respondent/State. RULE. Rule made
returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel
.....2/-
Judgment
wp435.21 15
for parties.
2. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges order dated
27.4.2021 passed by the respondent rejecting application for
releasing the petitioner on emergency parole leave for 45 days.
The petitioner has been convicted for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 323, 143, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. On 1.4.2021, the petitioner applied for his release on
emergency parole leave for 45 days. The said application has been
rejected by impugned order dated 27.4.2021. The petitioner has,
therefore, challenged the said order by way of present writ
petition.
4. Learned counsel Shri S.D.Chande for the petitioner,
submitted that ground on which the application made by the
petitioner for grant of emergency parole leave for 45 days is not
sustainable. He submitted that ground mentioned in the
impugned order that the petitioner was not released twice earlier
.....3/-
Judgment
wp435.21 15
is not sustainable in view of judgment of this Court in the case of
Milind Ashok Patil vs. State of Mah., (Cri.W.P.ASDB-LD-VC-
65/2020).
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.N.R.Tripathi
for the respondent/State, submitted that reason mentioned in the
impugned order may not be sustainable in view of the judgment
cited in the case of Milind Ashok Patil supra, the petitioner is not
eligible for release on emergency parole leave under provisions of
Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole)
Rules, 1959 as the petitioner has also been convicted under the
Arms Act which is a Special Act.
6. The point involved in the present writ petition is no
longer res integra in view of the full bench judgment of this Court
in the case of Pintu Uttam Sonale vs. State of Mah, reported at
2020(6) Mh.L.J.627. The full bench of this Court has taken a
categorical view that convicts who are convicted under the
provisions of the Special Act are not entitled to be released on
emergency parole leave. Since it is undisputed fact that the
.....4/-
Judgment
wp435.21 15
petitioner has been convicted under the provisions of the Arms
Act, the order passed by the respondent rejecting the application of
the petitioner for releasing him on emergency parole leave cannot
be faulted with.
7. Since the petitioner is not eligible for release on
emergency parole, the impugned order can be sustained on the
basis of different reason which goes to the root of the matter.
8. Since there is no merit in the petition, the same is
dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!