Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Akshay S/O Balu Junghare vs Superintendent Of Jail Central ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8212 Bom

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8212 Bom
Judgement Date : 21 June, 2021

Bombay High Court
Akshay S/O Balu Junghare vs Superintendent Of Jail Central ... on 21 June, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
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 !!




                                                                      ...../-





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter