Dhundrya @ Dhansing Deda ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 13981 Bom

                                                                                4-wp-3357-2021.doc




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO.3357 OF 2021
VISHAL             Dhundrya @ Dhansing Deda Bhilala (Pavara)              ...Petitioner
SUBHASH
PAREKAR                       vs.
Digitally signed
                   The State of Maharashtra                               ...Respondent
by VISHAL
SUBHASH
PAREKAR
Date: 2021.10.04   Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal, for the Petitioner.
                   Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent-State.
15:31:55 +0530




                                                   CORAM :   S.S. SHINDE &
                                                             N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.

                                                   DATE :        SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
                                                      ---------------

                   ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per N.J.Jamadar, J.)

                   1.       Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of

                   the counsels for the parties, heard fnally.



                   2.       The petitioner who is convicted for the offences punishable

                   under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer

                   imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2015, and

                   incarcerated in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik has preferred

                   this petition aggrieved by the condition No. 5 incorporated in the

                   order dated 9th June, 2021, inter alia, directing him to furnish

                   surety, who is a Government Servant, for release on emergency

                   parole under Rule 19(1)(c)(ii) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay

                   Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (the Rules, 1959).


                   Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                      1/4
                                                               4-wp-3357-2021.doc




3.       By the aforesaid order dated 9th June, 2021 the petitioner has

been ordered to be released on emergency parole upon furnishing

cash security of Rs. 20,000/-, personal bond in the sum of Rs.

10,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, one of

whom shall be a Government servant.



4.       Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

aforesaid condition of furnishing a surety, who happens to be a

Government Servant, is rather harsh and virtually defeats the

petitioner's right to be released on emergency parole.



5.         Mr. Saste, learned APP, on the other hand, would support the

aforesaid condition. It was urged that in order to ensure that the

prisoner returns back to prison, after period of parole is over, and

maintain peace while he is released on parole, competent authority

was justifed in imposing the aforesaid condition, submitted Mr.

Saste.



6.       We have considered the rival submissions. In our view the

insistence on furnishing a surety who is a Government servant may,

in a given case, frustrate the very object of directing the release of

the prisoner on emergency parole. The elements of poor fnancial


Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                       2/4
                                                                4-wp-3357-2021.doc




position and adverse social condition, which the long period of

incarceration for a grave offence usually bring in cannot be lost sight

of. Such a condition thus operates onerously.



7.         Undoubtedly, in addition to a family member or relative, the

prisoner must furnish is an independent surety. However, to insist

the surety must be a Government servant severely restricts the

entitlement of a prisoner to be released on emergency parole.



8.         Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner would furnish a surety who is an independent person

having good conduct and credentials. This, in our view, would

adequately address the concern of the respondent.



9.       For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded to allow the

petition. Hence, the following order.



                                           ORDER

1] The petition stands allowed.

2] Condition No. 5 of the impugned order dated 9 th

June, 2021 stands modifed to the effect the petitioner

shall furnish an independent surety having good conduct

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 3/4 4-wp-3357-2021.doc

instead of a Government servant and another surety

who is a family member or relative.

3] The petitioner shall comply with rest of the

conditions incorporated in the impugned order.

4] Rule made absolute to the aforesaid exteny.

         (N.J. JAMADAR, J.)                       (S.S. SHINDE, J.)




Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                         4/4