Mohammad Instaq @ Bablu Mohammad ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2182 Bom

                                              {1}
                                                                         crwp144921.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1449 OF 2021

 Mohammad Instaq @ Bablu Mohammad
 Yaqub Patel                                                     Petitioner

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra & another                              Respondents


 None present for the petitioner
 Mr. S. S. Dande, APP for Respondents.


                                   CORAM : V.K.JADHAV AND
                                           SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

                                   DATE       : 03rd March, 2022.

 PC :

 1                None present for the petitioner.              The matter is kept

today for taking instructions as regards withdrawal of the petition.

2 In the case of Pintu Uttam Sonale Vs. State of

Maharashtra, 2021 ALL MR (Cri) 822, the Full Bench, constituted

under the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, has framed

following two questions for determination:

"(i) Which of the interpretation of Rule 19(1) sub-rule (C) as brought about by the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole

{2} crwp144921.odt

(Amendment) Rules, 2020, either as made in decision of the Division Bench in Viendra Malaram Ranwa vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr or the decision of the Division Bench in Sardar s/o Shawali Khan vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr, is the correct interpretation"

(ii) Whether the provisions of `emergency parole' as brought about by the amendment to Rule 19(1) by insertion of sub-rule (c) by the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai) Furlough and Parole (Amendment) Rules, 2020, would cover prisoners convicted under the provisions of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act')?"

3 So far as question no. (ii) is concerned, same is

relevant for consideration of present petition. The Full Bench, in

the case of Pintu (supra), answered question no. (ii) as: "the

provisions of emergency parole as brought about by amendment to

Rule 19(1) by incorporation of sub-rule (C) read with its proviso

would cover prisoners convicted under the provisions of Protection

of Children Against Sexual Offences Act, 2012."

4 In the instant case, the petitioner has challenged the

order of rejection of his emergency parole by the Respondent-

authorities. However, it appears that the petitioner is convicted in

{3} crwp144921.odt

terms of judgment and order of conviction dated 31.07.2015,

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, in Sessions Case

No. 40 of 2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, has

convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 5,

punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children Against

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for Ten years and to pay fne of Rs. 10,000/-.

5 In terms of the aforesaid question answered by the Full

Bench in the aforesaid Reference, there is no substance in this

Criminal Writ Petition.

6 Hence, we pass the following order:

(i) Criminal Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.

  (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)                         (V.K.JADHAV)
      JUDGE                                        JUDGE

 adb