Bombay High Court
Tushar Kiranrao Maskare (C-5971) vs Divisional Commissiner Amravati Dist. ... on 14 October, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:11615-DB
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 379/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.385/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.439/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.495/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.502/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.582/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.740/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.762/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.773/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.795/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.796/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.815/2024 with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.753/2024
********
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 379/2024
Raju @ Mukesh Poonamchand Patel
(C-4864), aged about 42 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Bagmer, near Ram Mandir,
Tah. Pandhana, Dist. Khandwa (M.P.)
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
2
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
----------------------------------
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.385/2024
Nilesh Ganpat Fushe (C-6124)
aged about 30 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Post Sungaon, Tah. Jalgaon-Jamod,
Dist. Buldhana.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Amravati Central Prison, Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. M. K. Pathan, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
----------------------------------
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.439/2024
Golu @ Salim Khan Gaffar Khan Pathan (C-5788)
aged about 28 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Nehru Nagar, Babhugaon,
Tah. Babhugaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
3
Superintendent of Jail,
Amravati Central Prison, Amravati.
... RESPONDENT
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. N. Joshi, APP for respondent/State
----------------------------------
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.495/2024
Amol Vijay Deshmukh (C-5925),
aged about 38 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Palshi, Tah. Sengaon,
Dist. Hingoli.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. S. Kolhe, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
----------------------------
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.502/2024
Vijay Bhimrao Deshmukh (C-5924)
aged about 62 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Palshi, Tah, Sengaon,
Dist. Hingoli.
... PETITIONER
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
4
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. S. Kolhe, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
--------------------------------------
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.582/2024
Santosh Janardan Pagrut (C-687),
aged about 45 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Ghusar, Tah. & Dist. Akola.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Morshi Open Prison, Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. S. Kolhe, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
--------------------------------------
with
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
5
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.740/2024
Dhiraj Arunrao Shinde C-205 (6099)
aged about 38 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Paratwada, Tah. Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A. Ghogare, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
--------------------------------------
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.762/2024
Prafulla Baburao Sarode C-872(6068)
aged about 46 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Manik Chowk, Sindkheda,
Dist. Buldhana.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Open Prison,
Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
6
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. N. Tripathi, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
--------------------------------------
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.773/2024
Rahul Babanrao Bhad (C-5889)
aged about 30 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Hantoda, Tah. Anjangaon Surji,
Dist. Amravati.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. N. Tripathi, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
--------------------------------------
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.795/2024
Tushar Kiranrao Maskare (C-5971)
aged about 30 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Tadni Purna, Chandur Bazar,
Dist. Amravati.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
7
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. S. Dhote, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
--------------------------------------
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.796/2024
Dnyaneshwar Gangadhar Bhong (C-918)
aged about 45 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. Kaudgaon, Tah. Basmath,
Dist. Hingoli.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Morshi Open Prison, Morshi,
Dist. Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. U. R. Phasate, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
--------------------------------------
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.815/2024
Sanjay Tulshiram Bawankar (C-4756)
aged about 45 yrs., Occ. NA,
R/o. P.O. Kawtha Kadu,
Tah. Chandur Railway, Dist. Amravati.
... PETITIONER
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
8
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
Ms. Ratna Singh, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A. Badar, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
--------------------------------------
with
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.753/2024
Pradip Mahadeorao Sahare,
aged about 35 yrs., R/o.Rajni,
Post Dorli (Bhandwalkar), Tah. Narkhed,
Dist. Nagpur. C/666, Open Prison, Morshi.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
2. Superintendent of Jail,
Open Prison, Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------
Ms. Sonali B. Khobragade, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. M. K. Pathan, APP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
--------------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI JJ.
DATE : 14.10.2024.
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
9
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. These bath of petition raises a common issue that the
convict's parole/ furlough leave has been rejected primly on the
ground of amended Rules 19(3)(C)(ii) of the Prisons (Bombay
Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 ("Rules of 1959"). The said rule
postulates that a prisoner shall be eligible for subsequent release on
regular parole/furlough only after completion of one and half years of
actual imprisonment to be counted from his last return.
4. Learned counsel appearing for applicant relied on the
decision of this Court in case of Amit s/o Gajanan Gandhi Vs. State of
Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.47/2023 decided on
24.01.2023, wherein the said issue has been exclusively dealt in para 7
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
and 8 of the decision which reads as below:
"7. The only resistance is on account of the rider requiring
petitioner to make him self eligible in terms of Rule 19(C)
(ii) of the Prison Rules which concededly has not been
complied with. Rule 19(C)(ii) has been substituted by
notification dated 10.02.2022. Prior to notification, there
was a similar proviso under Rule 19(2) making a condition
of eligibility for regular parole of staying in Jail for the
period of one year after expiry of his last release on
emergency or regular parole. The said proviso to Rule
19(2) was subject matter of challenge before the Full
Bench of this Court in case of Kantilal Nandlal Jaiswal Vs.
Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, 2019(6) Mh.L.J. 186,
wherein the said proviso has been held to be violative to
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. We find that the newly introduced condition of Rule
19(2) (C)(ii) is having similar flavor which has been
already dealt by the Full Bench of this Court. Full Bench in
para 34 of the decision has expressed that there is no sense
in not entertaining the urge for release earlier in peculiar
facts. In case at hand, the petitioner has produced
document to show that his wife is about deliver a child
tomorrow (25.01.2023) and there is nobody in the family
to take care. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we
are inclined to grant regular parole."
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
5. Apart, the learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in
some of the cases, besides bar of Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959, no
other reason is assigned. As against this, the learned APP would submit that
since the authority was much swayed by amended Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) of the
Rules of 1959, therefore, the other grounds for rejection though discussed,
have not been specified.
6. In view of law laid down by the Full Bench decision in case of
Kantilal (supra) and the decision rendered by this Court in case of Amit
(supra), the reason about amended Rule 19(3)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959
would not survive. The matter remains to scrutinize the application on rest
of the grounds, if any including verification of the medical ground and on
other general parameters.
7. In view of above, all petitions are partly allowed. We hereby
quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the authority in all above
petitions. The petitioner, if desires, can produce additional documents in
support of the cause canvassed for the parole to the Jail Superintendent
within one week. On receiving the papers, the authority shall verify the
Judgment 5 wp 379.24
same, consider the petitioner's eligibility on all parameters and decide those
applications afresh within two weeks thereafter. We make it clear that Rule
19(3)(C)(ii) of the Rules of 1959 shall not be ground for rejection, if
petition is rejected on said ground, necessary action of contempt would be
initiated.
8. All petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/10/2024 11:03:57
