Shivaji Punjaram Gaikwad ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4192 Bom

                                                             criwp294.21.odt
                                    -1-

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD
              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 294 OF 2021

Shivaji s/o Punjaram Gaikwad
Age 55 years, 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. G.O. Wattamwar, APP for respondents.

                                  CORAM : V.K. Jadhav &
                                          M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.
                                  DATE : 8th March, 2021.

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

1.              Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.



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



3.              This petition has been fled for challenging the order

passed by the respondents vide which, emergency parole is refused to

the petitioner.




 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2021 21:29:54 :::
                                                            criwp294.21.odt
                                   -2-

4.              Petitioner had fled application for emergency parole

under Government Resolution dated 08.05.2020.               The reason for

rejection of application for emergency parole is that the petitioner had

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.



5.              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 interpretd the conditions

mentioned in the aforesaid Government Notifcation. This Court has

held that the condition in the said Notifcation that the prisoner

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

to have returned to jail in time, 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.




 ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2021 21:29:54 :::
                                                                      criwp294.21.odt
                                         -3-

6.                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)       Petition is allowed.


           ii)      Impugned order rejecting application for

emergency parole is hereby quashed and set aside.

iii) Application fled by the petitioner for emergency parole under Government Notifcation dated 08.05.2020 is allowed.

iv) Petitioner 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