Rupali Uttam Khedekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 14057 Bom

BHAGYAWANT
TATYARAO                                             1/6                     WP-2774-2021.doc
PUNDE
Digitally signed by        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHAGYAWANT
TATYARAO PUNDE                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Date: 2021.09.30
14:46:45 +0530
                                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2774 OF 2021

              Rupali Uttam Khedekar
              Age- 34 years Occ- Nil,
              R/o. Urali Kanchan, Tal- Haveli,
              Dist- Pune At presently lodged in
              Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.                      ...PETITIONER

                       Versus

              1.       The State of Maharashtra

              2.    The Superintendent of Jail
                    Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.                ...RESPONDENTS
                                               ...
              Mr. Aniket Vagal for Petitioner.
              Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State.
                                               ...

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

                                            RESERVED ON : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2021.
                                            PRONOUNCED ON: 29th SEPTEMBER, 2021.

              JUDGMENT: [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]

              1.                 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the

              consent of learned counsel for the parties.


              2.                 The Petitioner is a life convict and undergoing his

              sentence in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune. The Petitioner has

              undergone more than 7 years in the prison. The Petitioner was

              arrested in the year 2014 in C.R. No. 259 of 2014 registered with


              Bhagyawant Punde
                                         2/6                     WP-2774-2021.doc




Kalbhor Police Station for the offences punishable under Section

302 of IPC. The Petitioner was convicted in Sessions Case No. 734 of

2014 by the Sessions Court, Pune, vide order dated 17 th May, 2019

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced

to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fne of Rs. 10,000/-.


3.                 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to

the pandemic situation, as the notifcation was issued by the State

Government to decongest the jails, prisoiners to be released on

emergency parole, so as to minimize the spread of Covid-19 virus,

the petitioner applied for emergency parole. However, Respondent

No. 2 rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 25 th

February, 2021, on the ground that the petitioner has not been

released on furlough/parole in the past. Being aggrieved by the said

order passed by 2nd respondent, the petitioner fled Writ Petition No.

1801 of 2021 before this Court. Division Bench (Coram:- S.S. Shinde

& Manish Pitale, JJ.), vide order dated 4 th May, 2021, quashed the

order passed by the 2nd respondent and granted liberty to the

petitioner to fle a fresh application before Respondent No. 2 and

further observed that application fled by the petitioner shall not be

rejected on the same grounds which were mentioned in the

impugned order.


Bhagyawant Punde
                                         3/6                      WP-2774-2021.doc




4.                 It is submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this

Court on 4th May, 2021, the petitioner on 1 st June, 2021 fled a fresh

application before the 2nd respondent. The said application was

rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the police report

in respect of petitioner's parole leave is unsatisfactory/negative and

her appeal against the same is also rejected by DIG, Prison, on the

same ground. Hence, this writ petition.



5.                 Learned APP appearing for State invites our attention to

the impugned order and submits that the 2 nd respondent has rightly

rejected the application of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that

the petitioner was in police department and if the petitioner is

released on Covid-19 emergency parole, that she will tamper with

the prosecution witnesses, and, therefore, the petition deserves to

be dismissed.



6.                 We have given careful consideration to the submissions

of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP for

State. With their able assistance we have perused the pleadings and

grounds taken in the petition, impugned order and report fled by

the respondent authority.




Bhagyawant Punde
                                          4/6                      WP-2774-2021.doc




7.                 It appears that the application fled by the petitioner has

been rejected on the ground that she was never released on parole

or fulough in the past. Secondly, proper care is being taken to stop

the spread of Covid-19 virus, all the inmates are vaccinated in the

prison, the total number of inmates are less than the requisite

capacity and there is a adverse report against the petitioner.



8.                 So far adverse police report is concerned, no       specifc

statement of witnesses are brought to the notice of this Court which

would indicate any eminent danger to their lives or property. The

apprehension is expressed that in case the petitioner is released on

Covid-19 emergency parole and allowed to reside in the nearby place

of incident where the witnesses are residing, in that case she may

pose danger to lives of said witnesses. In this respect, care can be

taken if the petitioner is directed to reside/stay away minimum 25

km from the place of incident and from the vicinity where the

witnesses are residing. No doubt independent sureties are necessary

in case of release of the petitioner on Covid-19 emergency parole.

The Petitioner is a women and has already undergone more than 7

years imprisonment and she was never released on furlough/parole.




Bhagyawant Punde
                                            5/6                      WP-2774-2021.doc




9.                 At this juncture it would be apt to reproduce herein

below objectives of furlough/parole mentioned in Rule 1(A) of the

said Rules.

                   *[1(A). Objectives:-

                         Furlough and Parole leaves to inmates
                   are progressive measures of correctional
                   services. The objectives of releasing a prisoner
                   on leave are:-

                    (a) To enable the inmate to maintain
                   continuing with his family life and deal with
                   family matters,

                   (b) To save him from           evil   effects   of
                   continuous prison life,

                   (c)   To enable him to maintain and develop
                   his self-confdence,

                   (d)  To enable him to develop constructive
                   hope and active interest in life.]


10.                In that view of the matter and in the light of discussion

hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the petition deserves to be

allowed. Hence, the following order:

                                          ORDER

A) The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.06.2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside.

B) The Petitioner be released on Covid-19 emergency parole, on a condition that the Petitioner shall furnish independent surety and one surety from friends/relatives.

Bhagyawant Punde
                                          6/6                     WP-2774-2021.doc




      C)           After release the Petitioner shall reside/stay

minimum 25 km away from the place where the witnesses are residing.

D) The Petitioner shall report nearby police station where the petitioner is going to stay, twice in a week for two months and thereafter once in a week till she is on Covid-19 emergency parole.

E) In addition to above, the respondent authority would be at liberty to impose conditions on the the petitioner as contemplated under the relevant Rules/procedure.

F) Rule made absolute to above extent. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

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

Bhagyawant Punde