Radhe Zulidas Mandal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 13982 Bom

                                                                                3-wp-3356-2021.doc




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO.3356 OF 2021
VISHAL             Radhe Zulidas Mandal                                   ...Petitioner
SUBHASH
PAREKAR                       vs.
Digitally signed
                   The State of Maharashtra and Another                   ...Respondents
by VISHAL
SUBHASH
PAREKAR
Date: 2021.10.04   Mr. Amit Mane, 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 fnalll.



                   2.       The petitioner who is convicted for the offences punishable

                   under sections 302 and 392 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and

                   sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the major offence in

                   Sessions Case No. 34 of 2012, and incarcerated in Nashik Road

                   Central Prison, Nashik has preferred this petition aggrieved bl the

                   condition No. 5 incorporated in the order dated 9 th June, 2021, inter

                   alia, directing him to furnish a suretl, who is a Government Servant,

                   for release on emergencl parole under Rule 19(1)(c)(ii) of the

                   Maharashtra Prisons (Bombal Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959

                   (the Rules, 1959).

                   Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                      1/4
                                                               3-wp-3356-2021.doc




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

been ordered to be released on emergencl parole upon furnishing

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

10,000/- and one Government suretl in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-.



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

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

Government Servant, is rather harsh and virtualll defeats the

petitioner's right to be released on emergencl 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 authoritl

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 suretl who is a Government servant mal,

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

the prisoner on emergencl parole. The elements of poor fnancial

position and adverse social condition, which the long period of


Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                       2/4
                                                                3-wp-3356-2021.doc




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

of. Such a condition thus operates onerousll.



7.          Undoubtedll, in addition to a famill member or relative, the

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

the suretl must be a Government servant severell restricts the

entitlement of a prisoner to be released on emergencl parole.



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

the petitioner would furnish a suretl who is an independent person

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

adequatell 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 suretl having good

conduct, instead of a Government servant, and another

Vishal Parekar, P.A. 3/4 3-wp-3356-2021.doc

suretl who is a famill member or relative.

3] The petitioner shall compll with rest of the

conditions incorporated in the impugned order.

Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

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




Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                          4/4