Bombay High Court
Ganesh Kisan Pare C- 8846 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 June, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 CRI WP 687.2021+1 one
surety.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.687 OF 2021
Ashok Dattatraya Bongane C-8464,
age major, occ. Nil,
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. G O Wattamwar
...
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.688 OF 2021
Ganesh Kisan Pare,
age major, occ. Nil,
Convict No.8846,
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,
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2021 23:39:11 :::
2 CRI WP 687.2021+1 one
surety.odt
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents.
...
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. G O Wattamwar
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
Dated : June 28, 2021
...
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V. K. Jadhav, J.) :-
1. We have received these two communications in
writing from the convict/s through Aurangabad Central
Prison, Aurangabad. The same are treated as a criminal
writ petition/s.
2. Heard. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable
forthwith. The learned APP waives notice for
respondents-State in both the writ petitions.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. These two 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 :-
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2021 23:39:11 :::
3 CRI WP 687.2021+1 one
surety.odt
Sr. Name Convict Period
No. No.
1. Ashok Dattatraya Bongane C-8464 8 Yrs. 1 Month
(WP. No.687 of 2021) and 5 Days
2. Ganesh Kisan Pare C-8846 4 Yrs. 8
(WP No.688 of 2021) months & 8
days.
5. 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.
6. The convicts have communicated that they are the
poor persons and due to fnancially weak position they
are unable to furnish two sureties, as directed. The
petitioners/convicts are ready to furnish one surety for
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2021 23:39:11 :::
4 CRI WP 687.2021+1 one
surety.odt
the like amount and thus prayed that the condition of
furnishing two sureties, as directed by the respondent/
Superintendent of Jail may be modifed 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 09.03.2021 in Criminal Writ Petition
No.340 of 2021 taken a similar view and modifed the
condition to the extent of one surety instead of two
sureties.
8. The learned APP in these two writ petitions
submits that though the rule provides no specifc
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 has fairly accepted that
it was a requirement of furnishing two sureties in the
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2021 23:39:11 :::
5 CRI WP 687.2021+1 one
surety.odt
notifcation issued by the Home Department dated
26.08.2016, however, in the notifcation 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".
9. It thus appears that the respondent/
Superintendent of Jail, Aurangabad in terms of the old
notifcation dated 26.08.2016 has directed the convict to
furnish two sureties while granting him Covid
Emergency parole. The petitioners/convicts are the
poverty stricken persons. They are in jail for a long
period. It is thus diffcult either for them or their
relatives to make the arrangement of two sureties.
Furthermore, in case of the petitioners/convicts 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 petitioners/
convicts to furnish one surety for an amount of
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2021 23:39:11 :::
6 CRI WP 687.2021+1 one
surety.odt
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) which
should be an independent surety, not relative to the
prisoner.
10. The petitioners/convicts are poor persons and it is
not possible for them or their relatives 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
petitioners/convicts to furnish one surety for an amount
of Rs.20,000/-, which should be an independent surety,
not relative to the prisoner.
12. In view of the above, we are also inclined to take a
similar view and decide these two writ petitions in the
similar manner. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petitions are hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is modifed and the
petitioners/convicts are directed to execute a
aaa/-
7 CRI WP 687.2021+1 one
surety.odt
Personal Bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) 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 Petitions are accordingly disposed off.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
...
aaa/-
