Bombay High Court
Santosh Sadashiv Sonwane ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 11 April, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
{1}
crwp494.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 494 OF 2022
Santosh Sadashiv Sonwane
(Convict No. C/5106),
age: 40 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o at present: Open District
Prison, Paithan,
District Aurangabad. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
02 The Additional Director General
& Inspector General of Prisons
& Correctional Services,
Pune, Maharashtra.
03 The Superintendent,
Open District Prison, Paithan,
Vill-Paithan, District
Aurangabad. Respondents
Mrs. S. P. Chate, advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for the Respondents.
CORAM : V.K.JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 11th April, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER V.K. JADHAV. J.):
1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 04:28:03 :::
{2}
crwp494.22.odt
finally at admission stage.
2 In terms of the notification dated 8.5.2020 issued by
the State Government on the backdrop of outbreak of COVID-19
pandemic situation, the petitioner herein has filed leave application
for emergency parole to the respondent authorities, however, the
respondent authorities rejected the leave application by the
impugned order solely on the ground that in terms of the said
notification the petitioner ought to have availed either furlough or
parole leave in the past and that the petitioner ought to have
returned to jail in time on such last two occasions. It is further
observed by the respondent authorities that the petitioner is
presently in the open jail at Paithan and at present there are less
number of inmates compared to the capacity of 500 inmates in the
open jail.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this
issue is no longer res integra in view of the judicial pronouncement
of this court (Coram: T. V. Nalawade and Shrikant D. Kulkarni,
JJ.) in criminal writ petition No. 571 of 2020 decided on
30.6.2020, (Kavita w/o Dilip Baviskar vs. State of Maharashtra),
and thereafter in various cases, this court has interpreted the
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 04:28:03 :::
{3}
crwp494.22.odt
conditions laid down in the aforesaid Government notification and
held that the said condition is to ensure that the prisoner should
return the jail on his own in time after emergency parole period is
over. Learned counsel submits that even though there are less
number of inmates in the open jail at present, however, it cannot
be ignored that most of the inmates in the open jail came to be
released on emergency parole leave and there is no reason for the
respondent authorities to discriminate the petitioner for the reason
that there are less number of inmates in the open jail at present,
as compared to the capacity of open jail of 500 inmates.
4 Learned A.P.P., appearing for the respondent-
authorities, has supported the order passed by the respondent
authority by referring the conditions as laid down in the
notification dated 8.5.2020.
5 We have carefully gone through the judgment and
order passed by this Court in the case of Kavita w/o Dilip Baviskar
vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). This court in para 4 and 5 of the
said judgment has made the following observations:-
"4. In the notification dated 8 th May 2020, the State
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 04:28:03 :::
{4}
crwp494.22.odt
Government has given direction to the Jail Authority to
see that the prisoners, who are behind the bars, are
released on emergency parole in view of the situation
created by pandemic of Covid-19 virus. In the said
notification, there is condition that the prisoner, who is
otherwise eligible to get furlough or parole leave, can
get the benefit of this notification, provided that in the
past he was released from jail on furlough or parole
leave on two occasions and on all the occasions, he had
surrendered in time.
5. Due to the aforesaid condition, peculiar and
strange circumstance is created as against prisoner,
like present petitioner, even if he has been actually
behind the bar for more than 11 years. The petitioner
was granted furlough leave only once and on that
occasion he turned up in time. He did not avail
furlough leave on other occasion and not claiming the
furlough leave on other occasion cannot make him dis-
entitled to claim the benefit of the aforesaid
notification. The purpose behind putting such
condition can be only to ensure that the prisoner will
surrender in time after expiry of emergency parole
period. There cannot be any other intention behind
such a condition."
6 We agree with the view expressed on earlier occasion
by the Division Bench that said condition is prescribed to ensure
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 04:28:03 :::
{5}
crwp494.22.odt
the timely return of the prisoner, who has been granted emergency
parole leave on account of outbreak of Covid-19. It would be
ridiculous to read the said condition as condition barring the
prisoner to apply for emergency parole leave for the reason that on
earlier occasion they were not released on parole or furlough leave.
Apart from this, we agree with the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities cannot
make discrimination as against the petitioner for the reason that
the petitioner can very well stay in open jail safely by maintaining
social distance, as at present less number of inmates are there in
the open jail since others have been granted emergency parole
leave by giving benefit of the aforesaid notification.
7 In view of above, we are inclined to allow this writ
petition. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
I. Criminal Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
II. Impugned order, rejecting emergency parole to the petitioner,
is hereby quashed and set aside.
{6}
crwp494.22.odt
III. Application filed by the petitioner for emergency parole under
Government Notification dated 8th May, 2020, is hereby
allowed.
IV. The petitioner be released on emergency parole on usual
terms and conditions within seven days from today.
V. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
VI. Authenticated copy of this order may be supplied to both the
sides.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) (V.K.JADHAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
adb
