Bombay High Court
Shubham S/O. Tatyarao Jawanjal vs The Divisional Commissioner, ... on 25 November, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
37-WP-573-2021.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 573 OF 2021
Shubham s/o Tatyarao Jawanjal,
aged about adult, R/o at Post Kund Khurd, Haturna,
Tah. Bhatkuli & District Amravati.
(C/5667, Central Prison, Amravati, District Amravati).
...PETITIONER
Versus
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati, District Amravati.
...RESPONDENTS
Ms. P. M. Mane, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. N.R. Tripathi, A.P.P. for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : M.S. SONAK AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 25, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the
order dated 01/06/2021 passed by respondent No.1 -
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, whereby respondent No.1
has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of parole
leave of 45 days.
3. The petitioner is a convict and undergoing sentence
of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code, and since 02/11/2019, he is
lodged at Amravati prison.
4. On 19/04/2021, the petitioner has applied for
release on parole leave for 45 days on the ground of serious
illness of his mother. He has annexed medical papers along
with the application. His application came to be rejected vide
order dated 01/06/2021 mainly on the ground that surety is
not the resident of the place where the petitioner would reside
during parole leave. Secondly, there are other members in the
house of the petitioner to take care of his mother, and thirdly,
the relatives of the deceased expressed apprehension of
occurrence of serious crime if the petitioner is released on
parole leave.
5. Mrs. Tripathi, learned A.P.P. reiterated the grounds
on which the application for parole leave of the petitioner came
to be rejected.
6. We have considered the submissions put forth on
behalf of both the sides and perused the record.
7. At the outset, a perusal of the impugned order
would reveal that the petitioner has produced medical
certificate of illness of his mother issued by the Medical Officer,
District General Hospital, Amravati dated 10/02/2021. A
careful perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the
learned authority has not considered the medical ground of the
mother of the petitioner while deciding his application.
8. Rule 19(2) of The PRISONS (Bombay Furlough and
Parole) Rules, 1959 provides eligibility of the prisoners for
Regular Parole in case of serious illness of father/ mother/
spouse/ son/ daughter of the prisoners. The objectives for
grant of furlough or parole leave to the inmates, i.e., the
progressive measures of correctional services, which came to be
inserted vide notification No. MIS-1316/C.R.669/16/PRS-3
dated 16/04/2018 are a) to enable the inmate to maintain
continuity with his family life and deal with family matters; b)
to save him from evil effects of continuous prison life; c) to
enable him to maintain and develop his self- confidence; d) to
enable him to develop constructive hope and active interest in
life.
9. In the instant case, considering the medical papers,
which have been produced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner before this Court, issued by the Medical Officer,
District General Hospital, Amravati about serious illness of the
parents, i.e., angioplasty was recommended for the father of
the petitioner, while for the mother, operation was suggested
for bulky uterus, so also considering the fact that the reply filed
on behalf of the State does not indicate any other significant
reason for not granting parole leave to the petitioner, nor did it
say that the petitioner, at any time, taken undue advantage
when he was released on furlough leave earlier, this Court is of
the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for
his release on parole leave.
10. Accordingly, we quash and set-aside the order dated
01/06/2021 passed by respondent No.1 - Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati. Respondent No.2 is directed to
release the petitioner on parole leave for 45 days subject to
such conditions to the satisfaction of respondent No.2 to secure
the presence of the petitioner after the leave period is over.
11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Writ
Petition is disposed of.
(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (M.S. SONAK, J.)
******
Sumit
