Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

-

1. By consent of the parties, heard finally at admission stage.

2. Since in all these criminal writ petitions common question of law has been raised, it would be appropriate to decide these writ petitions by this common order.

3. We have formed three categories of petitions as per the issues raised therein. Category I is about late surrender by prisoner, category II is about eligibility for parole in terms of provisions of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 ("said Rules", for short) and category III is about three years not completed by prisoner for grant of parole. Details of the petitions as per the above stated categories is as under:

crwp746.21.odt

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that so far as the category I is concerned, it is about late return and their applications seeking emergency parole came to be rejected mainly on the ground of their late return to the prison on earlier release on parole or furlough.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that clauses (A) and (B) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the said Rules, prescribe the provision about Emergency parole whereas sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of the said Rules prescribes the provision about regular parole. So far as regular parole is concerned, all the prisoners eligible for furlough shall be eligible for regular parole for certain reasons as detailed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of the said Rules. It is submitted that the eligibility criteria for regular parole is in terms of the provisions of Rule 4 of the said Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that so far as the provisions of emergency parole are concerned, clauses (A) and (B) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the said Rules prescribe that all convicted prisoners except foreigner and death sentenced prisoners may be eligible for emergency parole for 45 days for the reasons as detailed in clauses (A) and (B). Learned counsel submit that there is mark difference between the eligibility criteria for the regular parole and the emergency parole. The amendment to Rule 19, as referred above, is by way of insertion of crwp746.21.odt clause (C) to Rule 19 sub-rule (1) and as such, all convicted prisoners are entitled to be released on parole except for the reasons as stated in sub-clause (ii) of the added clause (C), so also its proviso. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in the proviso it is stated that the aforesaid directions shall not apply to convicted prisoner convicted for serious economic offences or bank scams or offences under Special Acts (other than IPC) like MCOC, PMLA, MPID, NDPS, UAPA etc. However, that does not cover the prisoners convicted for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. simplicitor without any conviction under any Special Act. It is submitted that, however, the Superintendent of District Prison has rejected the applications seeking COVID-19 epidemic emergency parole of the convicted persons as per sub-clause (ii) by referring the provisions of Rule 4(12) of the said Rules, which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 19 (1) (A) and (B) and the added clause (C) of the said Rules.

crwp746.21.odt

18. Learned APP submits that in the backdrop of all these orders and the decisions taken by the HPC, the State of Maharashtra by Notification dated 16.04.2018, amended the said Rules vide Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2018. Further, by Notification dated 08.05.2020, The said Rules came to be amended in its application to the State of Maharashtra and Rule 19(1) (C) came to be inserted.

41. Rule 19 sub-rule (1) of the said Rules contemplates emergency parole and sub-rule (2) speaks about regular parole. So far as sub-rule (2) about regular parole is concerned, all the prisoners eligible for furlough shall be eligible for regular parole for the reasons as mentioned in sub-rule (2). In the backdrop of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2020 crwp746.21.odt and so also considering the categorisation made by the HPC for release of the convicted prisoners and also in terms of the newly added sub-rule 19(1)(C), it cannot be said that the eligibility criteria as contemplated under Rule 4 would be inapplicable to Rule 19(1) (C).