Bombay High Court
[email protected] Sonu Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 November, 2021
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, S. V. Kotwal
1
28.wp-3922-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3922 OF 2021
Morsingh @ Pintu Sonu Pawar .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .... Respondent
....
Mr. Swaraj Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.
....
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : 15 NOVEMBER 2021
P.C.
. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioner was convicted by the judgment and order
dated 30 May 2017 under Sections 363, 120-B, 302, 201 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
life. The appeal filed by the Petitioner challenging his conviction is
pending.
3. The Petitioner filed an application on 1 June 2021 to be
released on emergency parole. The application was granted on 7 June
2021 on certain conditions. The Petitioner has challenged the
condition stipulated in the order dated 7 June 2021 granting
emergency parole that the Petitioner should produce a surety of
28.wp-3922-21.odt
Government Servant of rupees twenty thousand. According to the
Petitioner such a condition is unwarranted and in the case of the
Petitioner it is also impracticable to be furnished considering the social
strata from which the Petitioner hails.
4. It is not necessary for us to elaborate upon this controversy
as the admitted position at the bar, is that identical cases is that such a
condition has been set aside in series of order of this Court. Learned
Counsel have placed before us the orders passed in the cases of
Rakesh Mukhnath Sharma Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1,
Rakesh Ramsamuj Rai (brother of the petitioner Brijesh Rai) Vs. The
State of Maharashtra2, Indarsing Padkya Pawara Vs. State of
Maharashtra3 and Mohd. Amir Shaikh Mohd. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors.4. We have perused these orders. A consistent
view has been taken by this Court that insisting upon furnishing a
surety of Government Servant will not be justified and the Court has
substituted such condition by two sureties - one being independent
person and another a family member/related having good conduct.
Nothing is placed before us as to why the Petitioner is not entitled to
the benefit of this view taken. We are not informed that any of these
orders are challenged by the State.
5. Accordingly the petition is disposed of by quashing and
setting aside the condition in the order dated 7 June 2020 of
1 Decided by this Court on 4 August 2021 in Writ Petition No.2728/2021.
2 Decided by this Court on 14 September 2021 in Writ Petition No.3203/2021.
3 Decided by this Court on 27 September 2021 in Cri Writ Petition No.3350/2021.
4 Decided by this Court on 3 November 2021 in Writ Petition No.4097/2021.
28.wp-3922-21.odt
furnishing a surety of Government Servant in the amount of Rs.
Twenty Thousand. The Petitioner be released on emergency parole
on furnishing two sureties - one of independent person and other of
family member, friend or relative having good conduct of Rs.Twenty
Thousand each. Rest of the conditions in the order dated 7 June 2021
are maintained as it is.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. The authorities
to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
7. Since the condition has been set aside in series of matters
and the State has accepted the orders, there is no reason why the State
should keep imposing this condition, creating needless litigation, and
forcing the convicts to approach the Court.
8. The office of the Public Prosecutor will furnish a copy of
this order and the copies of the orders which are referred to in the
present order to the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya. The
Secretary will consider issuing necessary directions in respect of this
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE Date:
condition.
2021.11.17
14:50:33
+0530
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
