Rajkumar Baidyanath Pal vs The State Of Mah.Thr. The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3877 Bom

                                                   1                     crwp677.21.odt


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 677 OF 2021


     Rajkumar Baidyanath Pal
     Aged about 45 years
     R/o Presently detained in Central Prison,
     Amravati, District Amravati.
     Convict No.C-2630                         ... PETITIONER

           ---VERSUS---

     The State of Maharashtra,
     Through the Superintendent of Prison,
     Central Prison, Amravati, Tah. And
     District Amravati.                                        ...RESPONDENT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.A. Pannase, Advocate for (appointed) petitioner.
Ms N.R. Tripathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                     AMIT BORKAR, JJ.

             DATE          : 11th APRIL, 2022.


JUDGMENT : (PER - AMIT BORKAR, J.)

1.           Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the order dated

29.05.2021 refusing the release of the petitioner on emergency 2 crwp677.21.odt

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

Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

4. The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and on the date of

application he has undergone punishment of 15 years and 5

months.

5. The petitioner on 25.05.2021 filed an application before

the respondent seeking emergency parole, which has been

rejected by its order dated 29.02.2021. The petitioner is,

therefore, challenging the said order by of present writ petition.

6. This Court on 13.10.2021 issued notice to the

respondent. In pursuance of which, the respondent has filed reply

stating that on earlier occasion when the petitioner was released

on furlough leave, the petitioner surrendered late after 2328 days.

7. In view of paragraph 3 of reply, it appears that the

petitioner has himself surrendered late by 2328 days. Thus, the

petitioner is not entitled for being release in view of decision of

this Court in Milind Ashok Patil and Ors vs State of Maharashtra in

Criminal Writ Petition-ASDBLD-VC No.65/2020.

8. There is no merit in the petition, the petition is therefore

dismissed.

3 crwp677.21.odt

9. Shri A.A. Pannase, learned counsel being appointed

through High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, is entitled for

his professional fees and we quantify at ₹2,500/-

Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any,

stand(s) disposed of.

                                            JUDGE                                    JUDGE
                Wagh




Signed By:SURESH RAOSAHEB
WAGH
Personal Assistant
to the Hon'ble Judge
Signing Date:13.04.2022 18:14