Bombay High Court
Rukmini Amol Kalsait vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 September, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
Sherla V.
wp.2534.2021 (J).doc
VISHWANATH
SATYANARAYANA
SHERLA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
Digitally signed by
VISHWANATH
SATYANARAYANA SHERLA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2534 OF 2021
Date: 2021.09.17 09:43:02
+0530
Rukmini Amol Kalsait
Sister of Convict Maruti @ Pintu Dattatray ... Petitioner
Harihar
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & others ... Respondents
Ms.Harjeet Kaur for the Petitioner
Ms.A.S. Pai, Public Prosecutor, for Respondent - State
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &
N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON: SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON: SETPEMBER 17, 2021
JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the
learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's brother,
namely, Maruti @ Pintu Dattatray Harihar is a life convict, who was
arrested in relation to C.R. No.99 of 2000 for the offences
punishable under sections 396, 364, 414, 201 read section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police
wp.2534.2021 (J).doc
Station, Pandharpur, District Solapur. The petitioner's brother (for
short, hereinafter referred to as 'the convict') had applied for parole
leave on 2nd March, 2020, which was rejected on 14th July, 2020 by
the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. Hence, this
petition.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the convict was released on parole/furlough in the past and he had
returned to jail in time on two occasions although there was some
delay on other occasions. She has, however, submitted that for
such delay in reporting to the jail, appropriate action of deduction
of remission was taken against the convict. It is submitted that
the convict has already spent 22 years in prison. It is also
submitted that the mother of the convict is required to undergo a
surgery and the presence of the convict is necessary for taking
care of her. The learned Counsel submitted that grounds of
rejection on the basis of Rules 4(2) and 4(13) of the Maharashtra
Prisons (Mumbai Parole & Furlough) (Amendment) Rules, 2018
cannot be applicable to the convict as he has already completed
22 years of imprisonment. It is also submitted that the Karmala
police report specifies that if the convict is released on parole
wp.2534.2021 (J).doc
leave, they have no objection as they have verified the entire
medical record of the mother of the convict. The learned Counsel
has, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed and the convict
be granted parole.
4. Learned APP appearing for the Respondent - State has
opposed the petition for parole leave. She submitted that there
may be other relatives to look after the mother of the convict. She
submitted that when the convict was released in the year 2010 on
furlough, he did not report back to the prison authorities on
completion of the said furlough in time as he had overstayed for 6
days. Similarly, when the convict was released on parole in
February, 2012, he surrendered to the jail after a delay of 266 days
and hence, an offence was registered under section 224 of the
Indian Penal Code against the convict. Again, in May, 2016, when
he was released on parole, he reported late by 169 days and at
that time also, an offence was registered under section 224 of the
Indian Penal Code against the convict. The learned APP has,
therefore, submitted that the convict is in the habit of overstaying
as and when he is released on furlough/parole. He is a convict
under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, he is
wp.2534.2021 (J).doc
not entitled to be released in view of the amended rules 4(2) and
4(13) of the Prison Rules. She has prayed that the petition be
dismissed.
5. We have given careful consideration to the rival
submissions. With the assistance of the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor
appearing for the Respondent - State, we have perused the
grounds taken in the petition, the annexures thereto and the
grounds on which parole leave is applied for by the convict.
Admittedly, the petitioner has undergone 19 years, 8 months and 7
days of imprisonment. It is true that on each occasion, when the
convict was released, he overstayed the sanctioned leave period.
However, the fact remains that he voluntarily surrendered to the jail
authorities. There is no denial to the assertion of the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the police report is in
favour of the convict. It is needless to mention that if the petitioner
has overstayed, the respondent - authorities might have taken
appropriate action against him including deduction of remission as
available to the credit of the convict. In addition to the above, the
learned Counsel for the petitioner has assured this Court that if the
wp.2534.2021 (J).doc
petitioner is released on parole, he will not jump the said leave and
the convict will report back to the jail authorities on completion of
the period of parole leave.
6. Keeping in view the sentence undergone by the convict till
today and the fact that the petitioner was released on couple of
occasions on parole/furlough and he surrendered to the jail
authorities on his own, we are inclined to allow this petition.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b). The petitioner is directed to be released on
regular parole for the period mentioned in the relevant Rules upon
furnishing the necessary sureties and bond as prescribed under
the Rules.
8. It is made clear that any breach of the conditions of parole
will be seriously viewed. The petitioner shall report back to the
respondent jail authority immediately upon completion of the
parole period.
9. Writ Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
