Bombay High Court
Saraswati Santosh Sonawane Wife Of ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 February, 2021
Author: S.S. Shinde
Bench: S. S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally
signed by
Vishwanath 1/4 CRWP-102-2021(J).doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla Date:
2021.02.09
19:48:22
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 102 OF 2021
Saraswati W/o Santosh Dashrath Sonawane
Alias Khandya
Aged about 39 years, presently serving
sentence of Life at Nashik Road,
Central Prison as Convict Prisoner No. C-11246. ...PETITIONER
Versus
State of Maharashtra
through its Home Ministry, Mantralaya
Madame Cama Road, Mumbai- 400 032. ...RESPONDENT
...
Ms. Payoshi Roy a/w. Ms. Chandani Chawla i/b. Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhari
for Petitioner.
Smt. A.S. Pai, APP for the State.
...
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 2nd FEBRUARY , 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON: 9th FEBRUARY. 2021 JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This petition is filed by the wife of the accused, who is in jail, convicted by the Sessions Judge by its judgment dated 21.04.2017 under sections 302, 504, 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Bhagyawant Punde 2/4 CRWP-102-2021(J).doc undergo rigorous imprisonment for life till the remaining life and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondent to release her husband on emergency parole.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 504, 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code. He was released on 01.12.2019 on furlough and he reported back to the jail authority on 22.12.2019. In March, 2020 there was spread of Covid-19 virus. The guidelines were issued by the High Power Committee. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to rapid spread of Covid-19 virus some inmates in the jail were tested positive and therefore, the husband of the petitioner applied for Covid-19 parole. The Nashik Road Central Prison has 2389 inmates and capacity is of 3018 inmates. In order to decongest to 2/3rd of its capacity (2012 inmates) it would have to release another 377 inmates including the accused. It is submitted that the respondent jail authority rejected the prayer of the accused only on the ground that in past the accused was only once released, and therefore, his prayer for Covid-19 parole cannot be considered in view of guidelines laid down by the High Power Committee.
Bhagyawant Punde 3/4 CRWP-102-2021(J).doc
4. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for Respondent-State relied upon the report received from the Nashik Road Central Prison and submitted that the accused is convicted for serious offence and he has to undergo life imprisonment for his remaining life. The accused was only once released on furlough and not on two occasions, as it is necessary in view of the guidelines laid down by the High Power Committee constituted by the Government of Maharashtra. It is submitted that the capacity of the jail to accommodate inmate is 3118 and till date 2297 inmates are in the jail. In short, submission is that the number of inmates in jail is below the requisite strength. It is also submitted that, full care is being taken to avoid the spread of Covid-19 virus, so also everyday there is thermal scanning and also rapid antigen tests are being conducted. All the precautionary measures are being taken to avoid any casualty of Covid-19 virus.
5. We have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP appearing for State. It is true the the accused is convicted for serious offences and he has to undergo sentence for remaining his life. Another ground given by the respondent jail authority that the accused was only once released on furlough, and therefore, his prayer for release on Covid-19 parole cannot be considered. This issue has been dealt with by the Bombay High Court, bench at Aurangabad, in the Bhagyawant Punde 4/4 CRWP-102-2021(J).doc case of Kavita w/o Dilip Baviskar v/s. The State of Maharashtra (Coram: T.V. Nalawade & Shrikant D Kulkarni, JJ), wherein a view is taken that whether the convict was released on one occasion or twice on parole in past and reported back in time, had been introduced with an intention to see that the convict shall return to jail in case he is released on emergency parole. It is further held in the said case that through the petitioner therein had released only once on parole in the past, he was entitled to be released on emergency parole.
6. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order and grant liberty to the accused i.e. husband of the petitioner to file an fresh application. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.09.2020 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is partly allowed. Rule made absolute to above extent. The writ petition stands disposed of.
7. In case the accused i.e. husband of the petitioner files application before the jail authority, the jail authority shall decide the same within three weeks from filing the said application on its own merits and in accordance with law.
( MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) Bhagyawant Punde