Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O Rangrut Madkam vs State Of Mah. Thr. Deputy ... on 4 October, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 Cr.W.P.No.549.2021-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.549 OF 2021
Sanjay S/o. Rangrut Madkam
(Convict No. Age -32,
R/o. Mundarai (Bhuma), Seoni,
Dist. Seoni, (M.P.)
Presently Convict No. C/7219,
Central Prison, Nagpur. ....PETITIONER
---- VERSUS ----
1. State of Maharashtra Through
The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Central Prison Eastern Region,
Nagpur.
2. Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. V. N. Mate, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 04.10.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging order dated
30.05.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 thereby rejecting the
emergency parole leave of the petitioner under Rule 19(1)(C) of the
Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter
refers as "The Rules of 1959").
4. The petitioner is a convict for the offences under
Sections 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and had already
undergone actual imprisonment of 17 years, 8 months and 8 days
on the date of filing of application.
5. The petitioner on 24.05.2021 filed an application for
emergency parole with the respondent No.3 placing reliance on
Rule 19(1)(C) of the Rules of 1959. The said application is rejected
by the impugned order dated 30.05.2021.
6. The petitioner has therefore filed present petition
challenging the order dated 30.05.2021. This Court on 12.08.2021
issued notice to the respondents. The respondent No.3 has filed
reply dated 01.09.2021 stating that the petitioner has been
convicted for the offences under Sections 396 and 397 of the Indian
Penal Code and therefore he is not eligible for being released on
emergency parole leave.
7. Mr. V. N. Mate, learned Advocate for the petitioner
placed reliance on unreported judgment of this Court in Writ
Petition No.2386/2021 in support of his submission that even
though a prisoner is not eligible for being released on regular
parole, Rule 19 being a special provision where all convicts are
required to be released on fulfillment of conditions stated in Rule
19. He also placed reliance upon unreported judgment of this Court
in Criminal Writ Petition (St.) No.4216/2020.
8. Ms N. R. Tripathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that since the petitioner is not entitled for regular parole
in view of Rule 4(2) of the said Rules, he is not entitled to be
released on emergency parole.
9. We have carefully considered the averments in the
petition and the reply filed by the respondent No.3. On careful
perusal of Rule 4(2) and the language of Rule 19(1) of the said
Rules, we are of the view that Rule 19(1) gives limited right in
favour of all convicts, which right is not available in case of regular
parole or regular furlough. The issue involved is no longer in his
res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Baburao Marotrao Dakhore Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
reported in 2017 (4) B.C.R. (Cri.) 701, wherein this Court after
considering the scheme of Rule 19 and Rule 4 of the said Rules has
taken a view that taking into consideration the language of Rule 4
and 19 of the said Rules, a prisoner is entitled for emergency parole,
even if, he is not eligible for regular parole. In view of the judgment
of Coordinate Bench of this Court and also in view of unreported
judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No.2386/2021 and Criminal
Writ Petition (St.) No.4216/2020, we are of the view that the
petitioner is entitled to be released on emergency parole under Rule
19(1)(C) of the said Rules.
10. Therefore, we pass following order :
i] The impugned order dated 30.05.2021 passed by the
respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside.
ii] The respondent No.3 is directed to release the
petitioner on emergency parole on such terms and
conditions as may be permissible under the Rules
within one week from the date of receipt of this order.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
