Dalsing @ Gajanan S/O. Dadarao Dhdare C-8929 v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1012 OF 2020 Dalsing @ Gajanan s/o Dadarao Dhdare age major, occ. Nil r/o AT Present Harsool District Prison Dist. Aurangabad.

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through its Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

The Superintendent of Harsool District Prison Dist. Aurangabad.

Respondents Mrs. Sharda Chate, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Tiwari, APP for respondents.

AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2020 Javed s/o Dastgir Kazi age major, occ. Nil r/o At present Harsool District Prison Dist. Aurangabad.

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through its Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

The Superintendent of Open Prison Paithan Dist. Aurangabad.

Respondents Mrs. Sharda Chate, Advocate for the petitioner.

- 2 - Mr. P.N. Kutti, APP for respondents.

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2020 Ajay S/O Ramnath Dandge (His father Ramnath s/o Dhondiram Dandge Convict no. 8333, Central prison Aurangabad age 20 year, occ. Agriculture r/ Wrud Kazi, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through Superintendent Central Prison, Aurangabad Respondent Mrs. Sharda Chate, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.O.Wattamwar, APP for respondent.

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1062 OF 2020 Sachn s/o Prahladd Kamble age major, occ. Nil r/o at Present Paithan Open District Prison Dist. Aurangabad.

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through its Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

The Superintendent of the open prison Paithan Dist. Aurangabad.

Respondents Mrs. Sharda Chate, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.B. Bagul, APP for respondents.

CORAM : T.V. Nalawade & M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.

- 3 - DATE : 28th September, 2020.

JUDGMENT : ( PER T. V. NALAWADE, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for fnal disposal.

All the matters are fled to challenge the orders made by respondent by which, emergency parole is refused to the petitioners-prisoners. The only reason given for refusal is that they have either not availed parole or furlough at any time in the past or that availed parole or furlough on one occasion only. 3.

This Court has interpreted the Government notifcation dated 08.05.2020 which is made for granting emergency parole due to pandemic situation created by Covid-19 virus. This Court has held that only because a prisoner has not availed parole or furlough in the past, cannot be a reason for refusing emergency parole to him. This Court has held in the past that if a prisoner has become eligible to get furlough then the beneft of the notifcation needs to be given to the prisoner. In view of such interpretation made by this Court and previous order made by this Court, this Court holds that the orders made by respondent cannot sustain in

- 4 - law.

4.

In the result, all the petitions are allowed. Orders made by respondent refusing emergency parole are quashed and set aside. Applications fled for emergency parole by the petitioners stand allowed. They are to be released on emergency parole on usual terms and conditions within seven days from the date of this order.

5.

Rule made absolute in above terms.

( M. G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V.

NALAWADE ) Judge Judge dyb