Allowed

Sudam Sarangdhar Rajguru v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Jun 2018WP/683/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting parole. The court quashed the rejection, noting a recent State Notification withdrew the restriction linking parole denial to pending appeals. The petitioner was directed to be released on parole if otherwise eligible.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the application for parole is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release the petitioner on parole if eligible.

Sudam Sarangdhar Rajguru Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

683.18WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 683 OF 2018

¶6

Sudam Sarangdhar Rajguru(C-7890),
R/o At present Central Prison,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER
 VERSUS

¶7

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Secretary,
 Home Department, Mantralaya,
 Mumbai-32.

¶8

2) The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶9

3) Superintendent of Prison,
 Central Prison, Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS

¶10

...

¶11

 Ms. Sarita V. Gaikwad Advocate appointed for
 Petitioner.

¶12

 Mr. D.R. Kale, APP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
 ...

¶13

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶14

 V.K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2018.

¶16

683.18WP

¶17

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

¶19

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

¶20

heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶21

2.This Petition takes exception to the

¶22

order dated 12th December, 2017 passed by the

¶23

Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, thereby
rejecting the request of the Petitioner to release
him on parole.

¶24

3.It is the case of the Petitioner herein

¶25

that he applied for parole, however, by the
impugned order his application has been rejected

¶26

only on the ground that, the appeal filed by the
Petitioner challenging the conviction and

¶27

sentence, is pending before the High Court, in
view of the Notification dated 26th August, 2016

¶28

issued by the Home Department, State of
Maharashtra,parolecannotbegranted.

¶29

Accordingly, by invoking the provisions of Rule

¶30

683.18WP

¶31

¶32

3(b) (11) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and

¶33

Parole) Rules, 1959 (for short "the Rules of

¶34

1959), the application of the Petitioner has been
rejected.

¶35

4.There is no denial to the assertion of

¶36

the Petitioner that the Petitioner was earlier

¶37

released on parole and furlough and on each
occasion the Petitioner reported back to the jail
authorities within time. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that earlier when the
Petitioner was released on parole/furlough, he did

¶38

not misuse the liberty granted to him. Learned
counsel further submitted that merely because
appeal filed by the Petitioner against conviction
and sentence is pending, is no ground to deny him

¶39

the parole in view of the orders passed by the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Bench at
Nagpur, in Criminal Writ Petition No.196 of 2017

¶40

and Criminal Writ Petition No.97 of 2017 [Arun s/o
Gulab Gawli and another vs. D.I.G.(Prisons) (East)

¶41

683.18WP

¶42

¶43

Nagpur and another], and Criminal Writ Petition
No.462 of 2017 [Abdul Rajjak Sheikh Abdul Nabi
Shah vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and
others].

¶44

5.Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State
submits that, the Notification dated 26th August,
2016 to the extent of amending the provisions of
Rule 3(b)(11) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and
Parole) Rules, 1959, has been cancelled/withdrawn
by the State Government by issuing recent
Notification. Therefore, parole/furlough cannot be
denied only on the ground that the appeal filed by
such convict is pending in the Higher Courts.

¶45

6.We have given careful consideration to

¶46

the submissions of the learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing
for the State.

¶47

7.While rejecting the application of the

¶48

683.18WP

¶49

¶50

Petitioner to release him on parole, the
Respondent Authorities have placed reliance on the
amended provisions of Rule 3(b)(11) of the Rules
of 1959. Rule 3(b)(11) of the Prisons (Bombay
Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, amended as per
the Notification dated 26th August, 2016, reads
as under:

¶51

"(11) Whose appeal in conviction in Higher
Court or any other cases filed against them
either by Central Government or any of the
State Governments in any of the Courts are
pending and for which bail is not granted
to him/her by the related Courts."

¶52

8.We have carefully considered the

¶53

provisions of amended Rule 3(b)(11) of the Rules
of 1959. Merely because appeal filed by the
Petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence

¶54

is pending before the Higher Courts is no ground
to deny the parole/furlough in view of the orders
passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court, Bench at Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition

¶55

683.18WP

¶56

¶57

No.196 of 2017 and Criminal Writ Petition No.97 of
2017 [Arun s/o Gulab Gawli and another vs. D.I.G.
(Prisons) (East) Nagpur and another], and Criminal
Writ Petition No.462 of 2017 [Abdul Rajjak Sheikh
Abdul Nabi Shah vs. Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur and others], supra.

¶58

9.It is also important to note that, the
State Government has issued recent Notification
therebycancelling/withdrawingearlier

¶59

Notification to the following extent :-

¶60

"(11) Whose appeal in conviction in Higher

¶61

Court or any other cases filed against them
either by Central Government or any of the

¶62

State Governments in any of the Courts are
pending and for which bail is not granted to
him/her by the related Courts."

¶63

10.In the light of above, the impugned order
is quashed and set aside. We direct the
Respondents to examine entire earlier record of

¶64

683.18WP

¶65

¶66

the case of the Petitioner and release the
Petitioner on parole, if otherwise he is eligible
for the same, after completion of usual procedural
formalities, and shall not deny the same on the
grounds/objections mentioned in the impugned
order.

¶67

11.Rule is made absolute in above terms. The
Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶68

12.Since, Ms. Sarita V. Gaikwad, learned
counsel is appointed to prosecute the cause of the
petitioner, her fees be paid as per the schedule
of fees maintained by the High Court Legal

¶69

Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶70

[V.K. JADHAV, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶71

sga/-

Sudam Sarangdhar Rajguru v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudam Sarangdhar Rajguru v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash@Chabu Mahsuji Nikalje, C.NO.7315 Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay S/O. Baburao Musale (C-7005) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ahmed Khan Karim Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijay @ Ajay Murlidhar Dalvi, C.No. 16362, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yasin Khan Masum Khan Multani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Kumar Satish-Bhushan Bariar (C-4762) Open Prison, Paithan Vs Sachin Ramesh Salave, Superintendent, Open Prison, Paithan and Another