Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shyamal Shakar Dutta vs Divisional Commissioner Amravati And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 24378 Bom

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 24378 Bom
Judgement Date : 19 August, 2024

Bombay High Court

Shyamal Shakar Dutta vs Divisional Commissioner Amravati And ... on 19 August, 2024

Author: Vinay Joshi

Bench: Vinay Joshi

2024:BHC-NAG:9248-DB




               Judgment                                                   902 wp 602.24

                                                 1

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

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 602/2024

                   Shyamal Shankar Dutta
                   (In Morshi Open Prison)
                   aged about 34 yrs., Occ NA,
                   R/o. Shodhpur, Apurva Nagar,
                   North 24 Pargana, West Bengal.

                                                           ...        PETITIONER
                                             VERSUS

              1.   Divisional Commissioner,
                   Amravati, Dist. Amravati.

              2.   Superintendent of Open Prison,
                   Morshi, Dist. Amravati.

                                                                ... RESPONDENTS
                                   ---------------------------------
                           Mrs. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
               Mrs. N. Tripati, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
                                  ----------------------------------
                                   CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
                                                   MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
                                    DATE       : 19.08.2024.

              ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Judgment 902 wp 602.24

2. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Sections 302, 324, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code

and undergoing life imprisonment. The petitioner after completion of

initial three years of imprisonment has been transferred to the Open

Prison, where he has undergone ten years of imprisonment. The

petitioner has applied for grant of parole leave on 16.10.2023 for

illness of his wife and for delivery. The Authority has rejected parole

leave vide communication dated 26.07.2024 by stating that as there is

adverse police report, and the petitioner is not entitled for parole leave

due to bar under Rule 19(3)(g)(ii) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough

and Parole) Rules, 1959 ("the Rules of 1959").

3. So far as the last ground about Rule 19(3)(g)(ii) of the

Rules 1959 is concerned, the said aspect has been considered by this

Court in Full Bench decision in case of Dipak Sudhakar Wakalekar

Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. , 2011 Cr.L.J. 3263 and therefore, it

no longer survives. We have gone through the adverse police report.

It is stated that the surety provided by the petitioner is not capable.

Moreover, one additional reason has been assigned by the Police that Judgment 902 wp 602.24

Lok Sabha Election 2024 was to be held in West Bengal and there

would be problem of breach of peace. By the time, the Lok Sabha

Election is over. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

attracted our attention to proviso of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1959 to

contend that when the convict is confined in open prison, he can be

released on parole or furlough by the Sanctioning Authority by

dispensing with the requirement of surety. In this regard, she also

relied on the decision of this Court in case of Dipak Wakalekar

(supra).

4. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner

would submit that on the basis of same surety, the petitioner was

released on furlough and he had returned on due date. There is no

resistance to this submission. The learned APP would submit that the

petitioner's wife has already delivered a baby on 24.07.2024 and thus,

the ground no longer survives. In response, the petitioner reiterates

that he has requested for parole leave not solely on the ground of

delivery but also of ailment of his wife so that he can take care of his

wife. Moreover, one should consider the post delivery care of lady by Judgment 902 wp 602.24

her kin.

5. In the above circumstances, we hold that the petitioner is

entitled for grant of parole leave, hence following order:-

(I) Petition stands allowed. We hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2024.

(II) The Authority shall grant parole leave to the petitioner for the period as permissible under the Rules by imposing conditions which the Authority may deem fit.

(III) The Authority shall dispense with the condition of surety while imposing conditions and he be released on personal bond.

6. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Gohane

Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 21/08/2024 10:34:48

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter