Bombay High Court
Baban S/O. Kisan Thorat vs Divisional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 16 January, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:703-DB
922-WP-J 726-23.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 726 OF 2023
Baban Kisan Thorat, Aged 52 years, R/o Petitioner
At Maroda, Post Kavsa, Tah.Akot, District
Akola. C/111, Amravati Prison, Amravati.
-Versus-
1. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati
Division, Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail, Amravati Prison, Respondents
Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.R.A.Bhoyar (appointed) counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.N.R.Tripathi, AGP for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE :16th January, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Vinay Joshi J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the year
1987 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Kavita.
922-WP-J 726-23.odt
The petitioner applied for regular parole on account of illness of his
wife. Respondent No.1 Divisional Commissioner, Amravati
Division has declined to grant parole holding that the petitioner is
ineligible on account of Rule 4(10) of the Prison (Bombay
Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. It is pointed out that in past
when petitioner was released on parole, he remained absconding
from 5280 days that too was brought back by arrest. The same fact
is pointed out in reply stating that Sub clause-10 of Rule 4 of the
Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 precludes from
grant of parole/furlough, if the prisoner has defaulted in
surrendering himself on his earlier release.
4. Undisputedly, the default is large to the extent of 5280
days, however, the period of more than 10 years has lapsed from
said default. Particularly, we are impressed by the subsequent
conduct of the petitioner. As per the chart, in the year 2018,
petitioner was released on parole and at that time, he has
surrendered on due date i.e. on 20.10.2018. Apparently though,
he has absconded for long in past, however later on discretion was
used in his favour by granting parole leave. More so, on said
Kavita.
922-WP-J 726-23.odt
occasion, he has surrendered on due date. Considering the said
aspect we see no difficulty in denying the parole for the decade old
cause. Moreover, no other reason has been assigned for rejection.
In view of that, impugned order, does not sustain in the eyes of law.
The application is allowed. We, hereby, quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati.
5. The authority shall pass appropriate order of releasing the
applicant on regular parole by imposing suitable conditions which
he deems fit. Necessary order shall be passed within four weeks
from the date of communication of this order. Petition stands
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
6. The fees of learned counsel for the petitioner (appointed)
be quantified and paid, as per rules.
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J) (VINAY JOSHI, J)
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/01/2024 17:17:36 Kavita.
