Bombay High Court
Sumit Brijbihari Giri (C-6174) vs Divisional Commissioner Amravati, ... on 9 January, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
918.wp540.2023jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 540 OF 2023
Sumit Brijbihari Giri (C-6174)
Aged about 41 years, Occ.: NA,
R/o. RH No.1, Sukhshanti C.H.S., ... Petitioner
Sector 8, Plot No.8, Airoli,
Navi Mumbai - 400 708
Versus
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati. ... Respondents
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati.
Mrs. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Nandita Tripathi, APP for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, AND
SMT. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 09.01.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER: Vinay Joshi,J)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of both the learned counsel for the parties.
(2) The petitioner has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The petitioner has
PAGE 1 OF 3
918.wp540.2023jud.odt
undergone imprisonment for about seven years and ten months till the
date of filing of petition.
(3) The petitioner has applied for regular parole in
terms of Rule 19(3) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole)
Rules,1959, for the purpose of ailment of his mother. The petitioner
has annexed medical papers for the perusal of the authority. However,
vide impugned order dated 22.06.2023 passed by respondent No.1 -
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, has declined to grant parole leave
only on account of Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) in terms of Notification dated
10.02.2022. Precisely, it was rejected on the ground that the petitioner
has not undergone actual imprisonment of one and half years after his
earlier release from parole or furlough leave.
(4) This issue fell for consideration before Full Bench of
this Court in case of Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal Vs. Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur, 2019(6) Mh.L.J. 186, which has struck down
the said rider being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India. It was followed by this Court in several decisions including in
case of Amit s/o Gajanan Gandhi Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal
Writ Petition No.47/2023 decided on 24.01.2023. By applying the said
PAGE 2 OF 3
918.wp540.2023jud.odt
law we do not find any impediment in allowing the petition.
(5) In view of above, the petition is allowed. Impugned
order dated 22.06.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. We hold that
the petitioner is entitled for regular parole on usual terms and
conditions which may be imposed by the Prison Authority as it deems
fit and proper. Necessary order be passed within four weeks.
(6) Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
[MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.] [VINAY JOSHI, J.]
Prity
Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane PAGE 3 OF 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/01/2024 15:44:42
