Raosaheb Maruti Nemane v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1453 OF 2020 Raosaheb s/o Maruti Nemane age major, occ. Nil r/o 8422, Harsul Jail, Aurangabad Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra Through his Principal Secretary Home Department, Mantralay Mumbai 32.

2.

Deputy Inspector of Police (Prison) Central Prison, Harsul Aurangabad District Aurangabad.

3.

The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Harsul, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

Respondents Mr. S.G. Bobde, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.B. Bagul, APP for all respondents.

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1472 OF 2020 Ranjeet s/o Haribhau Jadhav age 32 years, occ. Labour r/o Shingthala, Tq. Sailu Dist. Parbhani Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Department of Home Maharashtra State, Mantralaya

- 2 - Mumbai 32.

2.

The Superintendent Aurangabad Central Prison Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

Respondents Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, APP for both the respondents. CORAM : T.V. Nalawade & M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.

DATE : 1st December, 2020.

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER T. V. NALAWADE, J.) 1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.

By consent, heard both the sides for fnal disposal. 3.

Both the proceedings are fled for relief of quashing of the order made by respondents by which, emergency parole which is permissible under State Government Notifcation dated 08.05.2020 is refused to the petitioners.

4.

In both the petitions, reason given for refusal of emergency parole is that the present petitioners had either not availed furlough or parole in the past or had availed furlough only on

- 3 - one occasion. Government Notifcation dated 08.05.2020 shows that there is condition that in the past the petitioner ought to have availed either furlough or parole and he ought to have returned to the jail on his own in time atleast on last two occasions. This Court has interpreted this condition. This Court has held that if the prisoner was otherwise eligible to get furlough but he had not availed furlough in the past, the circumstance that he had not availed furlough or parole in the past cannot come in his way to get the beneft of emergency parole under Government Notifcation dated 08.05.2020. 5.

In the present matters, submissions made and the record shows that the petitioners in both the proceedings had completed more than three years of jail term on the relevant date. In the frst case, the petitioner had availed furlough on one occasion and the in the second case, though the petitioner had completed seven years of jail term, he had not availed furlough or parole even on a single occasion. In view of the intention behind the notifcation dated 08.05.2020 and the interpretation made by this Court, this Court holds that the orders made by the respondents cannot sustain in law. In the result, both the petitions are allowed.

- 4 - 6.

Orders made by respondent of rejection of emergency parole under Government Notifcation dated 08.05.2020 are hereby quashed and set aside. Applications fled by both the petitioners for emergency parole stand allowed. Petitioners are to be released on emergency parole under aforesaid Government Notifcation within seven days from today on usual terms and conditions. Rule made absolute in those terms.

( M. G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V. NALAWADE ) Judge Judge dyb