Gourav Narendra Singh vs Superintendent Of Prison Central ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2612 Bom

925-J-Cri.WP-32-22                                                               1/3


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

                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.32 OF 2022


Gourav Narendra Singh-C-5024
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Nil
Central Prison, Amravati                                    ... Petitioner

-vs-

Superintendent of Prison,
Central Jail, Amravati,
Tah. And Dist. Amravati                                     ... Respondent

Shri P. R. Agrawal, Advocate with Shri S. R. Jaiswal, Advocate for petitioner. Ms Kalyani R. Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND SMT M. S. JAWALKAR JJ.

               DATE        : March 16, 2022

Oral Judgment : (Per: A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

            Rule.    Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks his release on parole under Notification dated

08/05/2020. The petitioner has been convicted under Sections 376 and 506

of the Indian Penal Code and is serving his sentence. On 20/05/2021 the

petitioner moved an application for being released on parole under

Notification dated 08/05/2020. This application came to be rejected on

29/05/2021. The order of rejection was challenged in Criminal Writ Petition

No.699/2021. By the judgment dated 21/12/2021 this Court observed that

the order of rejection on the ground that the petitioner had not been released 925-J-Cri.WP-32-22 2/3

earlier was not sustainable and the condition with regard to prior release on

parole would be applicable when such prisoner had been released earlier and

had not returned to jail on the due date after such release. This Court

therefore set aside the order dated 29/05/2021 and remanded the

proceedings for fresh consideration in the context of the date of the

petitioner's application dated 20/05/2021. On 31/12/2021 the petitioner's

application came to be rejected by holding him ineligible for such release in

view of Notification dated 16/04/2018. This order is under challenge in the

present writ petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have

perused the reply filed by the respondent. It is an admitted position that the

petitioner has not been released earlier on emergency parole as permissible

under Notification dated 08/05/2020. Therefore after realizing the

entitlement of the petitioner for such release would be made out, the

respondent No.1 instead of considering the Notification dated 08/05/2020 as

directed by the order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.699/2021 has

taken into consideration the earlier Notification dated 16/04/2018 for

rejecting the application. In the light of the clear directions issued by this

Court in the earlier writ petition, it was not open for the respondent No.1 to

have considered the Notification dated 16/04/2018. On this count the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

925-J-Cri.WP-32-22 3/3

Our attention is invited to the orders dated 04/09/2021 and

03/01/2022 passed by the respondent No.1 thereby releasing other convicts

by applying the Notification dated 08/05/2020 though they were also

convicted under serious offences. The petitioner having sought his release

by moving an application on 20/05/2021 and this Court having directed

consideration of the same as per Notification dated 08/05/2020, the

respondent was not justified in rejecting the application. We find that the

petitioner has made out a case for his release on emergency parole under

Notification dated 08/05/2020.

3. Accordingly the order dated 31/12/2021 is set aside. The

petitioner is directed to be released on emergency parole as per Clause-2 (C)

(ii) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough

and Parole) Amendment Rules, 2020. The respondent shall obtain necessary

undertaking and surety from the petitioner and release him by imposing

suitable terms and conditions. The petitioner shall thereafter report on

completion of forty five days after his release.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                             (Smt M. S. Jawalkar, J.)                     (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)



Digitally signed byASMITA
             Asmita
ADWAIT BHANDAKKAR
Signing Date:17.03.2022
16:54:47