Bombay High Court
Amol Raghunath Chabukaswar-8392 vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 16 March, 2021
Bench: R.V. Ghuge, B. U. Debadwar
375.21WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
983 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.375 OF 2021
Amol Raghunath Chabukaswar C-8392
Age-Major years, Occ-Nil,
R/o: Aurangabad Central Prison,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad.
..PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through, Secretary, Home department,
State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent
of the Central Prison, Harsul,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Shri R.J. Nirmal, Advocate for the
petitioner;
Shri S.J. Salgare, APP for respondents
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE
AND
B.U.DEBADWAR,JJ.
DATE : 16th March, 2021
Oral Judgment (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge,J):-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith
and heard finally, by the consent of the
parties.
375.21WP.odt
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
order dated 04.03.2021, vide which, the
application of the petitioner seeking
emergency parole under rule 19(1)(C) of the
Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and
Parole) Rules 1959, has been rejected.
3. The learned Advocate for the
petitioner contends that he has been
convicted for the offence punishable under
sections 302, 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. There is no conviction under any
special enactment. He was behind the bars for
more than three years. There is no legal
impediment for considering his application.
4. The learned Prosecutor has placed
before us the chart which indicates that the
petitioner was behind the bars as an under
trial from 01.09.2011 till 23.04.2012 and
after conviction, as on 04.03.2021, he has
been serving out his sentence for two years,
four months and eleven days. Adding the
period, as an under trial, of seven months
and twenty three days, he was behind the bars
for three years and four days.
5. We find from the impugned order that
375.21WP.odt
the Incharge Superintendent, Aurangabad
Central Jail Shri R.R. Bhosale has rejected
the application of the petitioner on the
ground that he did not avail of any parole or
furlough leave anytime before.
6. Considering the above reason, we are
tired of setting aside such type of orders.
In hundreds of cases, we have held that if
the applicant does not avail of furlough or
parole leave on at least two occasions, it
would not be an impediment for entertaining
his application under section 19(1)(C)
considering the spread of Covid-19 pandemic.
We have transmitted such orders to the
Superintendents of all Jails and have also
requested the Additional Director General of
Police (Prisons) at Pune to direct all such
Jail Superintendents to refrain from passing
such orders. Yet, the impugned order came to
be passed on 04.03.2021, thereby, creating
unnecessary litigation and compelling the
petitioner to approach this Court.
7. Mr.Salgare, learned APP submits that
there is no other legal impediment for
entertaining the application of the
petitioner.
375.21WP.odt
8. In view of the above, this Petition
is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and
set aside.
9. The application preferred by the
petitioner dated 3rd March, 2021 stands
allowed. The petitioner shall be released on
emergency parole leave on 20th March, 2021
subject to compliance of the regular
conditions as are prescribed.
10. The author of the impugned order
Shri. R.R. Bhosale shall pay Rs.5,000/- as
costs from his salary and deposit the same in
the Jail account of the petitioner. The said
amount be credited to the Jail account of the
petitioner within 15 days from today.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above
terms.
(B.U.DEBADWAR,J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J.)
SGA
