Bombay High Court
Pintya @ Vinod Padmakar Savai vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary ... on 23 September, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 CRIWP21.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 21 OF 2021
PETITIONER : Pintya @ Vinod Padmakar Savai,
Convict No. C-4037,
Aged about 40 years, Major,
Presently at Amravati Central Jail,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Dy. Inspector General of Prison,
Amravati, Maharashtra.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Amravati Central Prison, Amravati,
Dist. Amravati, Maharashtra
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. G. K. Iyer, Advocate appointed for the petitioner.
Mrs. N. R. Tripathy, A. P. P. for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE and AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per V. M. Deshpande, J.]
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2 CRIWP21.21.odt
2. Heard Mr. G. K. Iyer, learned counsel appointed by the
High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur for the petitioner
and Mrs. N. R. TRipathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondents.
3. By the present writ petition, the petitioner raises a
grievance that the authorities below have wrongly rejected his
application to release him on emergency parole.
4. Notices were issued in the matter. In pursuance of the
notice, respondent no.3 Superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati
has filed its reply. From the reply it is clear that in 2015, when the
petitioner was released on furlough leave, he surrendered belatedly
by 17 days. Secondly, in the year 2018, when he was released on
furlough leave, he surrendered belatedly by 37 days and an offence
of absconding was also registered against him. Thirdly, when he was
released on parole in the year 2011, he did not surrender to the
prison on due date and he was required to be arrested and was
brought in the prison by police after delay of 61 days. Similarly, in
the year 2012 also, when he was released on parole, he surrendered
late by 221 days. Lastly, in the year 2015, when he was released on
3 CRIWP21.21.odt
parole, he did not surrender on due date and he surrendered late by
46 days and an offence of absconding was also registered against
him.
5. The question involved is not in res integra now in view
of the coordinate bench decision of this Court in Milind Ashok
Patil .vs. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition-ASDB-LD-VC
No. 65/2020, decided on 16.07.2020).
6. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the case
of the present applicant stands squarely covered by the law laid
down by this Court in Milind Patil's case (supra). There is no merit
in this writ petition. The criminal writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed. Rule discharged.
7. Mr. G. K. Iyer, learned counsel appointed for the
petitioner is entitled to receive his professional fees from the High
Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur and we are quantifying
his fees at Rs.2,500/-.
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
