← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1801/2021disposed off

Rupali Uttam Khedekar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

2021-05-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.S. Shinde,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale3 pages

BDP-SPS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1801 OF 2021 Rupali Uttam Khedekar ..... Petitioner.

V/s The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

..... Respondents.

Mr. Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner.

Mr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State.

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ.

DATE: MAY 04, 2021 P.C.:- 1] This Petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 25/02/2021 passed by Respondent No.2. There is a further prayer in the Petition to release the Petitioner on emergency parole for 45 days on terms and conditions provided under the relevant rules and procedure.

2] The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that prayer of the Petitioner to release her on emergency covid parole has been rejected only on the ground that the Petitioner was never released on 1/3

furlough/parole.

3] The learned APP appearing for the Respondents relies upon the contents of the impugned order and submits that the said order is passed on legally sustainable grounds.

4] Upon appreciation of rival contentions and perusal of the impugned order, it could be seen that the Petitioner' s prayer to release her on covid emergency parole has been turned down only on the ground that the Petitioner was not released even once in the past on furlough/parole.

5] This Court in number of Petitions has taken a view that merely because the convict is not released on furlough or parole, as the case may be, in the past cannot be a ground to reject the prayer of the convict to release her on covid emergency parole. 6] In that view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh application before Respondent No.2. In case such an application is filed, 2/3

Respondent No.2 to decide the same within two weeks from filing of such application. Needless to observe that the application filed by the Petitioner shall not be rejected on the same grounds which are mentioned in the impugned order.

7] With the above observations, Petition sands disposed of. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) 3/3