Bombay High Court
Chandrakant Vasant Aayare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 20 April, 2021
Author: S. S. Shinde
Bench: S. S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Sherla V.
wp.744.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.744 OF 2021
Chandrakant Vasant Aayare ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
2. The Superintendent of Jail, ... Respondents
Yerwada Open District Prison, Pune
Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner
Ms.Sangeeta Shinde, APP, for Respondent - State
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON : APRIL 8, 2021.
JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON: APRIL 20, 2021.
JUDGMENT [PER S. S. SHINDE, J.]:
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present petition for the following substantial reliefs:
a) Order of Respondent No. 2 passed on 19.5.2020, may kindly be quashed and set aside.Page 1 of 5
wp.744.2021.doc
b) The Petitioner may kindly be released on Emergency Parole for the Period of 45 days on any terms and condition as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
3. The Petitioner herein (Convict No.C-827), is convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment, in Sessions Case No.13 of 2012 on 13.2.2014 by the Sessions Court at Vasai.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner has undergone more than 8 years of imprisonment and he is lodged in the open prison. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner to release him on emergency (Covid-19) parole was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was never released on parole/furlough, till date. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that merely because the Petitioner was not released earlier is no ground to reject his application for emergency (Covid-19) parole.
5. Learned APP appearing for Respondent-State submits that the prayer of the petitioner to release him on emergency (Covid-
19) parole has rightly been turned down, relying upon the Page 2 of 5 wp.744.2021.doc notification dated 8th May 2020 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. It is submitted that the inmates are less in number as compared to the capacity of the prison. Utmost care is being taken in the prison by the officers and employees working in the prison, by examining the convicts by thermal scanning and RT-PCR tests. At present, there are no convicts who are tested positive/Covid-19 affected in the prison. Therefore, learned APP submits that the prayer of the petitioner to release him on emergency (Covid-19) parole cannot be favorably considered.
6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned APP appearing for the Respondent - State. With the able assistance of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned APP, we have perused pleadings and grounds in the petition, annexures thereto, impugned order/letter of understanding and also report received from the Superintendent of Yerwada Open Prison, Class- I, Pune-6. Upon careful perusal of the said report received from the prison authority, it appears that proper care is being taken of the convicts in the prison so as to avoid possibility of contracting Page 3 of 5 wp.744.2021.doc Covid-19 virus. However, in the impugned order/letter of understanding, the reason given is that the Petitioner herein was not released on furlough or parole, till date. Another reason given is that if the convict is from other State, in that case, emergency (Covid-19) parole cannot be granted to that convict. Thirdly, the inmate who is convicted for the economical offences and under Special Act is not eligible for emergency (Covid-19) parole.
7. In our opinion, merely because the petitioner was not released earlier cannot be a ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner for emergency parole. This Court in Criminal Writ Petition-ASDB-LD-VC No. 65 of 2020 (Milind Ashok Patil & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) had occasion to consider a similar issue and a view is taken in the said case that merely because the petitioner was not released once in the past on parole/furlough cannot be a ground for rejecting the application for emergency parole.
8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 19.5.2020 passed by Respondent No.2, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to apply afresh for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole within one Page 4 of 5 wp.744.2021.doc week from today. Upon filing such an application, the respondent authority shall decide the same on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, however, within three weeks from the date of filing of the application in accordance with the Prisions (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and keeping in view the factors like the extent of spread of Covid-19 virus and conditions in jail.
9. Rule is partly made absolute to above extent. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Page 5 of 5