Bombay High Court
Kunal S/O Kamlesh Pandya (Petitioners ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 September, 2021
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: S. S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
1/3 16-WP-2769-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2769 OF 2021
Kunal s/o Kamlesh Pandya
(Petitioner's brother Paras s/o
Kamlesh Pandya) ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
...
Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal for Petitioner.
Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for State.
...
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATE : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2021. P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that only on one occasion when the convict was released on parole he overstayed for 802 days and for the said overstay, an offence was registered under Section 224 of the IPC and the name of the convict was removed from remission register. He submits that since the convict has already punished for the said overstay, on said ground the respondent-authority should not have rejected the application of the convict to release him on Covid-19 emergency parole. He further submits that the convict has Bhagyawant Punde ::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2021 01:13:07 ::: 2/3 16-WP-2769-2021.doc undergone actual imprisonment for more than 5 years and therefore prayer of the convict to release him on covid-19 emergency parole deserves consideration.
2. On the other hand, Mr. Saste, the learned APP for State invites our attention to the reasons assigned in the impugned order and also report forwarded by the jail authority and submits that in the frst place, proper care is being taken to prevent the spread of Covid-19 virus in the jail. The total number of inmates in the jail are below the requisite capacity of the said jail. Inmates are vaccinated and regularly sanitization has been done in the prison. It is submitted that convict overstayed for more than 800 days, when he was released in the past, which dis-entitle him from seeking discretionary relief from this Court.
3. We have appreciated the rival contentions. With the able assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for State perused the pleadings and grounds in the petition, annexures thereto, reasons assigned in the impugned order and report placed on record by the learned APP. Upon careful perusal of the reasons assigned in the impugned order we are satisfed that proper care is being taken to prevent the spread of Covid-19 virus in jail. There is Bhagyawant Punde ::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2021 01:13:07 ::: 3/3 16-WP-2769-2021.doc no denial to the fact that there is regular cleanliness, sanitization in the prison and inmates are vaccinated.
4. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for an illegal overstay of the convict for 800 days, an offence was registered under Section 224 of IPC, nevertheless, the conduct of the convict when he was released earlier on furlough to overstay for more than 800 days needs to be kept in view while exercising the discretion.
5. In the present case there was delay of more than 800 days in reporting back to jail, which amounts to illegal stay outside the jail.
6. In view of above we are of the opinion that no discretion can be exercised in favour of the convict. For the reasons aforestated, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.
( N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2021 01:13:07 :::