Madhukar Shivram Khutade ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4191 Bom

                                                             criwp295.21.odt
                                 -1-

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 295 OF 2021

Madhukar s/o Shivram Khutade C-5305
Age 41, occ. Nil, R/o At present
Paithan Open Prison Dist. Aurangabad.                         Petitioner

       Versus

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through its Home Department
       Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.     The Superintendent
       of the Open Prison at Paithan
       Dist. Aurangabad.                                      Respondents

Mrs. S.P. Chate, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, APP for both the respondents.

                                WITH
                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 296 OF 2021

Ravi s/o Mangal Shelke C-5282
Age major, occ. Nil.
R/o at Present Harsl Prison
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.                                       Petitioner

       Versus

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through its Home Department
       Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.     The Superintendent
       of the Open Prison at
       Dist. Aurangabad.                                      Respondents

Mrs. S.P. Chate, Advocate for the petitioner.




 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2021 21:29:57 :::
                                                              criwp295.21.odt
                                    -2-

Mrs. V.N. Patil Jadhav, APP for both the respondents.

                                WITH
                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 297 OF 2021

Pinku Premprakash Yadunath Sing C 5315
age major, occ. Nil,
R/o at present Harsu Prison
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.                                       Petitioner

       Versus

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through its Home Department
       Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.     The Superintendent
       of the Open prison at
       Dist. Aurangabad.                                      Respondents

Mrs. Sharda Chate, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.B. Bagul, APP for both the respondents.


                                  CORAM : V.K. Jadhav &
                                          M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.

                                  DATE    : 8th March, 2021.

JUDGMENT : (Per M.G. Sewlikar, J.)


1.              Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.



2.              By consent, heard both the sides for fnal disposal.



3.              All these three petitions are being disposed of by common




 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2021 21:29:57 :::
                                                             criwp295.21.odt
                                    -3-

order as the subject matter involved in these petitions is similar.



4.              These three petitions have been fled for challenging the

orders passed by the respondents vide which, emergency parole is

refused to the petitioners.



5.              Petitioners had fled applications for emergency parole

under Government Notifcation dated 08.05.2020.                  In all these

petitions, the reason for rejection of application for emergency parole

is that the petitioners have not availed of parole or furlough even once

in the past.         Another ground assigned for rejection is that the

capacity of the prison at Paithan is 500 whereas only 77 inmates are

there in the said prison. Therefore, maintaining of social distance is

possible.       There is no manpower for performing agricultural

operations and for tending to the needs of the animals.



6.              In the matter of Kavita w/o Dilip Baviskar Vs. State of

Maharashtra decided on 30.06.2020, this Court (Coram : T.V.

Nalawade & M.G. Sewlikar, JJ) has interpreted the conditions

mentioned in the aforestated Government Notifcation.               This Court

has held that the condition in the said Notifcation that the prisoner




 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2021                  ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2021 21:29:57 :::
                                                                    criwp295.21.odt
                                       -4-

ought to have availed either furlough or parole in the past and ought

to have returned to jail in time on last two occasions is put to ensure

that the prisoner will return to jail in time after the period of

emergency parole is over.          This Court has further held that the

circumstance that the prisoner has not availed furlough or parole in

the past cannot come in his way if he is otherwise eligible during that

period to get furlough or parole.



7.                 The other grounds for rejection of parole cannot be

sustained as the inmates who have been released on parole are likely

to come back at any time. Therefore, the orders passed by the

respondents cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the following order

is passed :-



                                     ORDER

i) Petitions are allowed.

ii) Impugned orders rejecting application of emergency parole are hereby quashed and set aside.

iii) Applications fled by the petitioners for emergency parole under Government

criwp295.21.odt

Notifcation dated 08.05.2020 are allowed.

iv) Petitioners be released on emergency parole on usual terms and conditions within seven days from today.

v) Rule made absolute in those terms.

( M. G. SEWLIKAR )                                  ( V. K. JADHAV )
        Judge                                             Judge

dyb