Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav C-8959 v. The State Of Maharashtra

615.21crwp (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 18 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.615 OF 2021 SUDAM @ KANIRAM JADHAV

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Petitioner (through jail) Mr K. S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent/State CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.

DATE : 7th June, 2021 PER COURT:

1.

The petitioner is praying for directions to the Jail Authorities to grant emergency parole without sureties as nobody acquainted with him, is willing to stand surety.

2.

The petitioner was convicted for the offence of murdering his wife and four children. Two deceased children were the biological children of his deceased wife from her first marriage and two other children were his and his wife's biological children. The petitioner was awarded death sentence. His Criminal Appeal No.128/2009 was dismissed and the Confirmation Case No.01/2009 was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 22/04/2009. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed Criminal Appeal Nos.185/2011 and 186/2011 vide its

615.21crwp (2) judgment dated 04/07/2011 and upheld the death sentence awarded to him. However, by judgment dated 01/10/2019, the Review Petition (Cri.) Nos.401/2012 and 402/2012 filed by this petitioner were allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the extent of the death sentence awarded to him and the said sentence was commuted to life imprisonment for the remainder of his life sans any right to remission. 3.

The petitioner had sought emergency parole under Rule 19 (1) (C) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The said application was rejected by the Jail Superintendent. The petitioner had approached this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1479 of 2020 and by order dated 18/01/2021, the learned Division Bench of this Court expressed it's disinclination and the petitioner, therefore, withdrew the petition. The present petition is a second attempt made by the petitioner.

4.

We do not find any reasons or changed circumstances which would impress us to consider his request. As such, this petition is dismissed.

(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk