Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. While making his submissions, the learned Advocate for the applicant stated that he has already been granted emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(C) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1959 Rules"), on 23.09.2020 for a period of 45 days and the said period would expire on 08.11.2020. He, however, relies upon an order passed by this Court (Coram: T. V. Nalawade & Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.) dated 30.06.2020 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 578 of 2020 filed by Dinesh s/o. Arjunsing Thakur Versus The State of Maharashtra and another, vide which it was held, that there is an automatic extension of parole leave beyond 45 days and the applicant is not required to make any application or seek permission or an order from the concerned Jail Superintendent for extention of his parole leave in blocks of 30 days, by virtue of the State notification dated 08.05.2020. He therefore submits, that though he has a right to prefer a Criminal Application for seeking suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail, the hearing on this application could be kept pending since the applicant/ appellant is already on emergency parole leave and has a right for APPLN4118.2019 [Nagnath v State] extension of 30 days until the notification dated 08.05.2020 is withdrawn or substituted by a new notification, whichever is later.

"3. We find that the State of Maharashtra had amended the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 vide the Maharashtra Notification dated 08.05.2020. By virtue of APPLN4118.2019 [Nagnath v State] the said amendment, Rule 19(1)(C) was introduced in the said Rules with the aim and object of preventing the spread of the corona virus in the prisons, as almost all the prisons were congested. The State Government intends to de-congest the prisons and hence, Rule 19(1)(C) was introduced for a limited purpose in the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic.

18. In the above backdrop, it is obvious that divergent orders have been passed by different learned Division Benches with regard to APPLN4118.2019 [Nagnath v State] the requirement of an application for extension of emergency parole and for surrendering after such leave granted for a period of 45 days under Rule 19(1)(C) of the 1959 Rules, comes to an end. In Dinesh Thakur (supra), it was held, though in a very short order and wherein all the provisions of the 1959 Rules were not referred to, that a prisoner gets automatic extension of emergency parole in blocks of 30 days. In Sonu Shrinath (supra), this Court held that the prisoner will have to file an application for extension if he desires an extension to his emergency parole leave granted under Rule 19(1)(C) of the 1959 Rules. The order in Dinesh Thakur (supra), was not cited. In Jafar Shaikh (supra), it was ordered by the learned Division Bench at Mumbai in paragraph no. 15(v) that the Superintendent, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune shall pass appropriate orders regarding the extesion of the parole in accordance with the Rules, if the notification issued by the State Government continues to operate on the day the period of 45 days expires. In Dhananjay Dighe (supra), the learned Division Bench at Mumbai directed in paragraph 10(2) that, the respondent-competent authority would impose such conditions on the prisoner while granting him emergency parole that would ensure that the prisoner will surrender in time upon expiry of the emergency parole period.

Issue no. 2: Considering the effect of the second proviso and the undertaking mandated under Rule 24A read with Rule 27(2) and the first sentence under Rule 19(1)(C)(i) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, whether a prisoner would have to make an application for seeking extension of the emergency parole leave prior to the completion of his period of such leave granted under Rule 19(1)(C)(i)?