Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Parole Leave in Samadhan Laximan Dhandge vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 27 October, 2020Matching Fragments
6. We find it appropriate to firstly, deal with the primary issue involved in these petitions. The Jail Authorities have rejected the applications of the petitioners / kith and kin of the convicts / undertrials, only because the concerned candidate had not availed of furlough or parole leave on two occasions prior to moving the application under Rule 19 (1)(C).
6 CrimAppln.1843.2020
7. This Court dealt with this legal aspect in Kavita Dilip Baviskar Vs. The State of Maharashtra vide judgment dated 30-06-2020. This Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.) has passed an order on 24-07-2020 in Criminal Writ Petition No.666 of 2020 preferred by Ganesh s/o. Narayan Kindre Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Another concluding that, the failure on the part of any candidate in availing of furlough / parole leave on two occasions, would not be an embargo or a legal impediment for considering his application under Rule 19 (1)(C). Similar orders were passed by the same Bench on 24-07-2020 (Criminal Writ Petition Nos.666 of 2020 & 694 of 2020), 07-09-2020 (Criminal Writ Petition Nos.810 of 2020, 923 of 2020, 927 of 2020, 934 of 2020, 945 of 2020 & 955 of 2020), 18-08-2020 (Criminal Writ Petition No.875 of 2020) & 21-10-2020 (Criminal Writ Petition No.1246 of 2020) in identical petitions.
8. We find from these cases before us and the earlier orders of this Court passed in several matters, that the Jail Superintendents are yet to come to terms with the legal position crystallized by this Court that failure on the part of a candidate in availing of furlough / parole leave on two occasions prior to moving an application under Rule 19 (1)(C), would not be a legal impediment warranting the 7 CrimAppln.1843.2020 rejection of such application. We, therefore, find it necessary to direct the Registry of this Court to place this order before the Additional Director General of Police (Prisons) Shri Sunil Ramanand in order to request him to bring this legal position to the notice of all the Jail Superintendents in the State of Maharashtra. We are making this request since we find that this Court is flooded with such matters and there are at least 10 such petitions, on an average, on each day before this Court only because the Jail superintendents are passing cryptic orders rejecting the emergency parole applications only on the solitary ground that the candidate has not availed of such leave on two occasions prior to the filing of such applications. The merits involved in the applications are not being scrutinized by the Jail Superintendents.
8 CrimAppln.1843.2020
10. We find from the said chart that, the maximum occupancy for the Aurangabad Central Prison is 1109. Several orders have been passed by the Jail Superintendent as well as this Court granting emergency parole leave. Despite such orders, the total occupancy with the Aurangabad Central Prison as on 26-10-2020 is 1267, which is in excess by 158 convicts. The Aurangabad open prison has an occupancy of 50 prisoners and presently there are 16 inmates. This is on account of 60 out of 76 inmates having been granted emergency parole. The Jail Authorities have also set up a temporary prison in the State Bank Officers Association School with a strength of 120 inmates. Today, there are 103 inmates in the said temporary prison.
14. These petitioners shall be legally obliged to report to the prisons on or before the 45th day of such leave, subject to the liberty as may be provided by law for seeking extension of the parole leave. However, pendency of an application for extension of parole leave shall not be a ground for these petitioners to refrain from reporting to 10 CrimAppln.1843.2020 the Jail Authorities on or before the 45 th day. In the event, they desire extension of parole leave, such application should be filed at least 15 days prior to the exhausting of the 45th days leave and the Jail Superintendent would be obliged to decide the said application on its merits within the said period of 15 days so as to ensure that the application is decided before the expiry of the 45th day.