Bombay High Court
Mahavir Raghunathrao Hulangure vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
cri.wp-981.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.981 OF 2021
Mahavir Raghunathrao Hulangure : Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra : Respondent.
Ms. Gauri S Velankar, appointed advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Thakre, PP a/w Mr. S R Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
MANISH PITALE, JJ
Reserved on : 29th APRIL 2021
Pronounced on : 04th MAY 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER S S SHINDE, J)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent
of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2 The Petitioner has filed this Petition for grant of emergency Covid-
19 parole. The Petitioner (Convict No. C-9346) has been convicted by the
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 534 of 2012 on
30/04/2014 for the offences under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to
suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer
imprisonment for 6 months.
3 Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the
petitioner has undergone more than 8 years imprisonment and he is lodged in
the Nashik Road Central prison. The learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner invites our attention to the impugned order dated 19/09/2020
lgc 1 of 4
cri.wp-981.21.odt
passed by the Superintendent of Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik, and
submits that the Petitioner's application has been rejected by the said jail
authority relying upon the Government Notification dated 08/05/2020 that the
convicts, who have been convicted for the offences which are punishable for
more than 7 years and released twice on parole and such convicts reported
back in time on such release, are entitled for emergency parole. However, the
jail authority rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that in
the present case, the Petitioner was released only once on parole in past, and
therefore, in view of the notification dated 08/05/2020, the Petitioner is not
entitled to be released on emergency parole. Therefore, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner submits that, merely because the Petitioner was
released only once earlier is no ground to reject his application for emergency
(Covid-19) parole.
4 Learned PP 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 8 th May 2020
issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. It is submitted
that the requisite official capacity to accommodate the convicts in Nashik
Central Prison is 3178 inmates. By end of March 2021, there were 2364
convicts (68- women convicts and 2243 men convicts). It is submitted that in
the Nashik Central Prison 807 more convicts can be accommodated. In order to
lgc 2 of 4
cri.wp-981.21.odt
prevent spread of Covid-19 virus, inmates/convicts who have been recently
lodged in the said prison are kept in isolation in separate hall and after
necessary health checkup and tests, they are kept in the separate room in the
prison. There is thermal scanning and rapid antigen tests are conducted on
regular basis. In case, anybody is tested positive one separate isolation room
No. 8 is maintained for their stay and treatment.
5 We have given careful consideration to the submissions of learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned PP appearing for the
Respondent-State. With the able assistance of learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and learned PP, we have perused the pleadings and grounds in
the petition, annexures thereto, impugned order/letter of understanding and
also report received from the Superintendent of Nashik Central Prison, Nashik.
Upon careful perusal of the said report received from the prison authority, it
clearly appears on record that the 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 a reason given is that, the
Petitioner herein was released only once on furlough/parole, in past.
6 In our opinion, merely because the petitioner was released earlier
only once on furlough/parole cannot be a ground for rejecting the application
of the petitioner for emergency parole. This Court in Criminal Writ Petition-
ASDB-LD-VC No. 65 of 2020 (Milind Ashok Patil & Ors. Vs. State of
lgc 3 of 4
cri.wp-981.21.odt
Maharashtra & Ors.) had occasion to consider similar issue and a view is taken
in the said case that merely because the petitioner was not released twice in
the past on parole/furlough cannot be a ground for rejecting the application
for emergency parole.
7 In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 19.09.2020 passed by Respondent-authority, is quashed
and set aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to apply afresh for grant of
emergency Covid-19 parole within one week from today. Upon filing such an
application, the respondent authority shall decide the same on its own merits,
as expeditiously as possible, however, within two weeks from the date of filing
of the application in accordance with the Prions (Bombay Furlough and Parole)
Rules, 1959, and keeping in view the factors like the extent of spread of Covid-
19 virus and conditions in jail.
8 Rule is partly made absolute to above extent. The writ petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
9 We appreciate the able assistance rendered by Advocate Ms. Gauri
S Velankar, appointed for representing the petitioner. We quantify her fess at
Rs. 5000/- to be paid by High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, within
four weeks from the receipt of copy of this order.
[MANISH PITALE, J] [S. S. SHINDE , J]
lgc 4 of 4
