Ghanshyam Mesaji Jondhale vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 7020 Bom

Sherla V.


                                                                           20_wp.622.2021-J.doc


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.622 OF 2021

            Ghanshyam Mesaji Jondhale
            (prisoner No.C/8301)
                                                                               ... Petitioner
            Age 60 years, Occ.: Nil,
            At present Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik
                              Vs.
            1. State of Maharashtra
            2. The Superintendent                                        ... Respondents
            Nashik Road Central Prison, District Nashik.

            Mr.Sham V. Walve, advocate appointed for the Petitioner

            Mr.Deepak Thakare, Public Prosecutor with Mr.S.R. Shinde, APP,
            for Respondent - State


                                                CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
                                                       MANISH PITALE, JJ.

JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON: APRIL 29, 2021 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON: MAY 4, 2021

JUDGMENT [PER S. S. SHINDE, J.]:

Leave granted to correct the date of the impugned order in

prayer clause (C) of the memo of the petition. Amendment to be

carried out forthwith.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the

consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

20_wp.622.2021-J.doc

3. The Petitioner has filed the present petition for the following

substantial relief:

"C) The order passed by Respondent No.2 i.e. The Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik dated 19/09/2020 may kindly be quashed and set aside, which is at EXHIBIT C"

3. The Petitioner herein (Convict No.C-8301), is convicted for

the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for

life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in Sessions Case No.208

of 2007 on 10.5.2010 by the Sessions Court at Nanded.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner has undergone more than 13 years of imprisonment

and he is lodged in the Nashik Road Central Prison. It is

submitted that the application of the petitioner to release him on

emergency (Covid-19) parole was rejected on the ground that the

petitioner was released on furlough once in the past. Therefore,

the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that

merely because the Petitioner once earlier, is no ground to reject

his application for emergency (Covid-19) parole.

20_wp.622.2021-J.doc

5. Learned APP appearing for Respondent-State submits that

the prayer of the petitioner to release him on emergency (Covid-

19) parole has rightly been turned down, relying upon the

notification dated 8th May 2020 issued by the Government of

Maharashtra, Home Department. It is submitted that the inmates

are less in number as compared to the capacity of the prison.

Utmost care is being taken in the prison by the officers and

employees working in the prison, by examining the convicts by

thermal scanning and RT-PCR tests. At present, there are no

convicts who are tested positive/Covid-19 affected in the prison.

Therefore, learned APP submits that the prayer of the petitioner to

release him on emergency (Covid-19) parole cannot be favorably

considered.

6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of

learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned APP

appearing for the Respondent - State. With the able assistance of

learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned APP, we

have perused pleadings and grounds in the petition, annexures

thereto, impugned order/letter of understanding and also report

received from the Superintendent of Nashik Road Central Prison,

20_wp.622.2021-J.doc

District Nashik. Upon a careful perusal of the said report received

from the prison authority, it appears that proper care is being taken

of the convicts in the prison so as to avoid possibility of contracting

Covid-19 virus. However, in the impugned order/letter of

understanding, the reason given is that the Petitioner herein was

released once in the past, till date.

7. In our opinion, merely because the petitioner was released

once on parole / furlough earlier, cannot be a ground for rejecting

the application of the petitioner for emergency parole. This issue

has been dealt with by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court, in the

case of Kavita w/o. Dilip Baviskar vs. The State of

Maharashtra1 (Coram: T.V. Nalawade & Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.),

wherein a view is taken that whether the convict was released on

one occasion or twice on parole in the past and reported back in

time, had been introduced with an intention to see that the convict

shall return to jail in case he is released on emergency parole. It is

further held in the said case that though the petitioner therein had

been released only once on parole in the past, he was entitled to

be released on emergency parole.

1 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.571 OF 2020 decided on 30th June, 2020

20_wp.622.2021-J.doc

8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 19.9.2020 passed by Respondent No.2, is

quashed and set aside. The petitioner be released on emergency

Covid-19 parole in accordance with the Prisons (Bombay Furlough

and Parole) Rules, 1959.

9. Rule is made absolute. The writ petition stands disposed of

accordingly.

10. We appreciate the able assistance rendered by Advocate

Mr.Sham Walve, appointed for representing the petitioner. We

quantify his fees at Rs.5,000/- to be paid by High Court Legal

Services Committee, Mumbai, within four weeks from the receipt of

a copy of this order.

     (MANISH PITALE, J.)                                  (S.S. SHINDE, J.)