Bombay High Court
Pravin Pundlik Rathod vs State Of Mah. Thr. Superintendent ... on 6 May, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
wp168.21.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 168/2021
Pravin P. Rathod
...VERSUS...
State & ors.
****************************************************************************************************************
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
****************************************************************************************************************
Shri Raju Kadu, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Shamsi Haider, APP for the respondents
********
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
MAY 06, 2021
This Court on 29/04/2021 pronounced
operative part of the judgment allowing the petition. But at
the time of dictating reasons we noticed the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition-ASDB-
LD-VC No. 65/2020 (Milind Ashok Patil & ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra & ors.), which is against the petitioner. We have
therefore decided to rehear present petition on merits and
directed to place the matter today for hearing.
We have heard Shri Raju Kadu, learned
advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned
APP for the respondents - State.
By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 28/09/2020 passed by the respondent no. 1
rejecting emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(C) of the
Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules,
ANSARI
1959. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 376-G of the Indian Penal Code and
is directed to undergo imprisonment for period of 10 years.
The petitioner had undergone punishment of 6 years on the
date of filing of the application. The petitioner filed an
application for grant of emergency parole on 08/09/2020.
The respondent no. 1 by the impugned order dated
28/09/2020 has rejected the application of the petitioner.
The petitioner has therefore challenged the
impugned order dated 28/09/2020 by filing the present
petition. This Court on 25/02/2021 issued notices to the
respondents. The respondent no. 1 has filed reply dated
08/04/2021 wherein it is stated that on earlier occasion the
petitioner was released on parole, but the petitioner
surrendered himself late by 30 days. It is therefore prayed
that since on earlier occasion the petitioner had surrendered
himself late, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of
emergency parole.
Learned APP has invited our attention to para
no. 15 of the judgment in the case of Milind Ashok Patil
(supra) wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed
as under :-
"However, we make it clear that if the
convicts are released on 2 occasions or on 1 occasion,
either on parole or furlough previously and they are
late in surrendering then they are not entitled for the
benefit of the emergency parole."
We have considered the averments in the
petition and the reply filed by the respondent no. 1. From the
ANSARI
reply filed by the respondent no. 1, it is clear that on earlier
occasion when the petitioner was released on parole, he
surrendered himself late by 30 days. Therefore, the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Milind
Ashok Patil (supra) squarely applies to the case of the
petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of
emergency parole. We are therefore satisfied that there is no
merit in the petition.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
ANSARI
