Bombay High Court
Hirasingh Ankushsingh Thakur ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 October, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1160.21WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1160 OF 2021
Hirasing Ankushsingh Thakur,
Convict No.9199,
Age Major, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At present Aurangabad Central Prison,
Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent
of the Central Prison Aurangabad,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.R.D.Sanap, APP for the respondent-State.
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 07.10.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V.K.Jadhav, J.):-
1. We have received this communication in writing
from the convict through Aurangabad Central Prison,
Aurangabad. The same is treated as a Criminal Writ Petition.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2021 17:20:08 :::
1160.21WP.odt
2
2. Heard. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable
forthwith. The learned APP waives notice for respondent -
State.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The petitioner is a life convict in connection with
the crime / case and the details of his conviction and the
period undergone by him till this date so far is mentioned in
the following tabular form :
Sr. Name Convict No. Period
No.
1 Hirasingh Ankushsingh Thakur C-9199 5 years,
7 months and
24 days.
5. In terms of the amended Rule 19 (1) (C) (ii) of
the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole)
Rules, 1959, respondent no.2 herein has released the
petitioner / convict on Covid Emergency parole. However,
while granting him Covid Emergency parole, the respondent -
Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad has directed
the petitioner - convict to furnish two sureties for an amount
of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) in addition to
the execution of the personal bond.
6. The convict has communicated that he is a poor
person and due to financially weak position he is unable to
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2021 17:20:08 :::
1160.21WP.odt
3
furnish two sureties, as directed. The petitioner - convict is
ready to furnish one surety for the like amount and thus
prayed that the condition of furnishing two sureties as
directed by the respondent - Superintendent of Jail may be
modified to that extent.
7. This Court (Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge and
B.U.Debadwar, JJ.) by order dated 16.03.2021 in Criminal
Writ Petition No.257 of 2021 and the Division Bench headed
by (Coram : V.K.Jadhav and M.G.Sewlikar, JJ.) by order dated
09.03.2021 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 340 of 2021 taken a
similar view and modified the condition to the extent of one
surety instead of two sureties.
8. The learned APP submits that though the rule
provides no specific requirement or guidelines or directions of
furnishing two sureties by the convict while releasing him on
Covid Emergency parole, however, the same is left at the
discretion of the authority concerned. The learned APP
appearing for respondent-State has fairly accepted that it was
a requirement of furnishing two sureties in the notification
issued by the Home Department dated 26.08.2016, however,
in the notification dated 16.05.2018 issued by the Home
Department, Mumbai omitted the said word "two sureties"
and instead of that in Rule 24A, it is mentioned that "the
parole may be granted to a prisoner subject to his executing a
surety bond in Form A, a Personal Bond in Form B".
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2021 17:20:08 :::
1160.21WP.odt
4
9. It thus appears that the respondent -
Superintendent of Jail, Aurangabad in terms of the old
notification dated 26.08.2016 has directed the convict to
furnish two sureties while granting him Covid Emergency
parole. The petitioner - convict is the poverty stricken person.
He is in jail for a long period. It is thus difficult either for him
or his relatives to make the arrangement of two sureties.
Furthermore, in case of the petitioner - convict there are only
aged parents in the house. On earlier occasion, this Court in
the aforesaid two cases has relaxed the said condition and
directed the petitioner - convict to furnish one surety for an
amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) which
should be an independent surety, not relative to the prisoner.
10. The petitioner - convict is a poor person and it is
not possible for him or his relative to make the arrangement
of two sureties.
11. In Criminal Writ Petition Nos.630 of 2021, 631 of
2021, 632 of 2021, 633 of 2021 and 634 of 2021 this Court
has relaxed the said condition and directed the petitioner -
convict to furnish one surety for an amount of Rs.20,000/-,
which should be an independent surety, not relative to the
prisoner.
12. In view of the above, we are also inclined to take
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2021 17:20:08 :::
1160.21WP.odt
5
a similar view and decide this Writ Petition in the similar
manner. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is modified and the
petitioner - convict is directed to execute a
Personal Bond of Rs.10,000/- and one surety of
Rs.20,000/- which should be an independent
surety, not relative to the prisoner.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [V. K. JADHAV, J.]
SGA
