Bombay High Court
Narendra Parasram Pawar (C-9311) vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 June, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 912-916, Oral Jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
912 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.630 OF 2021
Narendra Parasram Pawar,
Age : 45 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o at present Harsul Prison,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent
of the Central Prison, Harsool,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mrs. S. G. Sonawane (Appointed).
APP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. D. Ghayal.
...
AND
913 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.631 OF 2021
Sham Vishnu Yadav,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o Central Prison Harsool, Aurangabad.
Convict No. C-8997 ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. The Superintendent,
The Central Prison Harsool,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2021 23:24:53 :::
2 912-916, Oral Jud.odt
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Adv. K. A. Ingle (Appointed).
APP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. P. Deshmukh.
...
AND
914 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.632 OF 2021
Shaikh Kamal Shaikh Khaza,
(C. No.8540)
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Harshul,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Adv. G. D. Jain (Appointed).
APP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. G. O. Wattamwar.
...
AND
915 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.633 OF 2021
Suresh S/o Arjun Nikam,
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o Aurangabad Central Jail, Harsool,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner.
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2021 23:24:53 :::
3 912-916, Oral Jud.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Superintendent
Aurangabad Central Prison,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Adv. M. S. Karad (Appointed).
APP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. D. Ghayal.
...
AND
916 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.634 OF 2021
Manohar Kondiba Waghmare, (C/9264),
Age : Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o Aurangabad Central Prison,
Aurangabad. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Superintendent
of Central Jail, Aurangabad,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. R. J. Nirmal (Appointed).
APP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. P. Deshmukh.
...
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2021 23:24:53 :::
4 912-916, Oral Jud.odt
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 23.06.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V. K. Jadhav, J.) :-
1. Heard finally at admission stage by consent. Rule. Rule
made returnable forthwith.
2. All these writ petitions since involving a common
question, taken together. The petitioners are the life convicts
in connection with the crime / case and the details of their
conviction and the period undergone by them till this date so
far is mentioned in the following tabular form :
Sr. Name Convict Period
No. No. (Years-Months-Days)
1. Narendra Parasram Pawar C-9311 More than 5
(WP. No.630/2021) years
2. Sham Vishnu Yadav C-8997 6Y., 9M., 10D.
(WP. No.631/2021)
3. Shaikh Kamal Shaikh Khaza C-8540 8Y., 2M., 29D.
(WP. No.632/2021)
4. Suresh Arjun Nikam C-9058 6Y., 3M., 18D.
(WP. No.633/2021)
5. Manohar Kondiba Waghmare C-9264 3Y., 8M., 18D.
(WP. No.634/2021)
5 912-916, Oral Jud.odt
3. In terms of the amended Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the
Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules,
1959, the respondent No.2 herein has released the
petitioners / convicts on Covid Emergency parole. However,
while granting them Covid Emergency parole, the respondent /
Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad has directed the
petitioners / convicts to furnish two sureties for an amount of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) in addition to the
execution of the personal bond.
4. The respective learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners / convicts submit that most of the petitioners are
poverty stricken persons and due to financial weak position,
they are unable to furnish two sureties as directed. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners / convicts submit
that in addition to the same, due to outbreak of Covid-19, it is
also not possible for the petitioners to furnish two sureties.
There are travel restrictions inter-se districts and it is thus
difficult for them to request the sureties to furnish the sureties
for them by crossing the distance. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submit that even though there is no provisions and
requirements in the Rules directing the petitioners / convicts to
6 912-916, Oral Jud.odt
furnish two sureties while granting Covid Emergency parole,
however, the Superintendent of Police of Jail has directed the
petitioners / convicts to furnish two sureties. The learned
counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners /
convicts may be granted Covid Emergency parole by relaxing
the stringent conditions imposed by the respondent /
Superintendent of Jail, Aurangabad directing them to furnish
two sureties. The petitioners / convicts are ready to furnish
one surety for the like amount and in view of the same, the
condition of furnishing two sureties as directed by the
respondent / Superintendent of Jail may be modified to that
extent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners / convicts submit
that on earlier occassion, 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 09.03.2021 in Criminal Writ Petition No.340 of 2021
taken a similar view and modified the condition to the extent
of one surety instead of two sureties.
7 912-916, Oral Jud.odt
6. The learned APP in all the cases submits that though the
rule provides no specific requirement or guidelines or
directions of furnishing two sureties by the convicts while
releasing them on Covid Emergency parole, however, the same
is left at the discretion of the authority concerned. The learned
APP appearing for respondent-State in all writ petitions have
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".
7. It thus appears that the respondent / Superintendent of
Jail, Aurangabad in terms of the old notification dated
26.08.2016 has directed the convicts to furnish two sureties
while granting them Covid Emergency parole. Most of the
petitioners / convicts are the poverty stricken persons. They
are in jail for a long period. It is thus difficult either for them
or their relatives to make the arrangement of two sureties.
8 912-916, Oral Jud.odt
Furthermore, in case of most of the petitioners / convicts there
are only aged parents in the house. On earlier occassion, this
court in the aforesaid two cases relied upon by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners / convicts has relaxed the
said condition and directed the petitioners / convicts 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.
8. In view of the above, we are also inclined to take a
similar view and decide all these writ petitions in the similar
manner. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) All the Writ Petitions are hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is modified and the petitioners /
convicts are 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.
9 912-916, Oral Jud.odt
(iv) Rule made absolute in the above terms.
(v) We quantify the fees for the appointed counsel at
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) in each of the
Writ Petition to be paid by the High Court Legal Services,
Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.
(vi) All the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed off.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
...
vmk/-
