Allowed

Sharad S/O. Shyamsundar Pawale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Jul 2018WP/825/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the High Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's parole application. The Court held that while the petitioner was convicted of kidnapping and murder, the statutory bar under the Maharashtra Prisons Rules applies specifically to 'kidnapping for ransom' (Section 364-A IPC). As the petitioner was not convicted of ransom kidnapping, the rejection was unsustai

What did the court decide?

Quashed the rejection order dated 02.01.2018; directed the authorities to consider the parole application afresh as expeditious as possible within two weeks on the same police report.

Sharad S/O. Shyamsundar Pawale Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

825.18 Cri.WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.825 OF 2018

¶5

Sharad s/o.Shyamsundar Pawle,
Age 30 Years, Occ.Nil
Convict No.7796
R/o. At Khairka Post Bomnali,
Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded
At present in Central Prison,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad ..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶8

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶9

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

¶10

...

¶11

Mrs.B.B.Gunjal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Y.G.Gujarathi, APP for the Respondent/
State

¶12

...

¶13

Reserved on : 23.07.2018
 Pronounced on : 25.07.2018

¶14

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶15

1]Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶16

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶17

825.18 Cri.WP

¶18

¶19

2]This Petition is filed praying
therein to quash and set aside the order
dated 02.01.2018 passed by respondent no.2.
It is further prayed to direct respondent
no.3 to release the petitioner on parole.

¶20

3] It is the case of the petitioner that by the judgment and order dated 5 th

¶21

April, 2014, the petitioner was convicted by

¶22

the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, Link
Court, Mukhed, for the offence punishable

¶23

under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code
[for short ‘I.P.Code’] and sentenced to
suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of
Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further R.I.

¶24

for six month. He was further convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.
34 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer

¶25

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs.1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six

¶26

month. At present, the petitioner is
undergoing life imprisonment at Aurangabad

¶27

825.18 Cri.WP

¶28

¶29

Central Prison, Aurangabad. On 06.10.2017,
due to serious illness of his mother, the
petitioner filed an application for parole to
the Competent Authority. After receipt of the

¶30

said application, the police report was
called from the concerned Police Station.

¶31

The police has filed its report in favour of

¶32

the petitioner. Thereafter, by impugned order
dated 02.01.2018, respondent no.2 has
rejected his application, mentioning therein

¶33

that the petitioner has been convicted for
the offence punishable under Sections 302 and
364 of the I.P. Code, and has been punished

¶34

for kidnapping and for committing murder. As such, there was no recommendation from the Superintendent, Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad. As per the Rule 3 [b] [13] of the Notification dated 26 th August, 2016, a convict, who is sentenced for offence such kidnapping for ransom, such prisoner/convict is not entitled to be released on parole.

¶35

825.18 Cri.WP

¶36

¶37

4]Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the impugned order is
not keeping in view the provisions of the
Notification dated 26th August, 2016 thereby
amending the Rule 4 of the Maharashtra
Prisons [Mumbai Furlough and Parole]
[Amendment] Rules, 2016 [for short ‘Rules of
2016’] under the Prisons Act 1994 [IX of
1894] inasmuch as in the said Rules, under
Rule 3 [b] [13] it is provided that in case
convict is convicted for the offence of
kidnapping for ransom, his application to
release him on parole cannot be considered.
It is submitted that the petitioner is
convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 302 and 364 of the I.P. Code. There
is no any other ground mentioned in the
impugned order for rejection of the
application of the petitioner to release him
on parole.

¶38

825.18 Cri.WP

¶39

¶40

5]On the other hand, learned APP
appearing for the respondent-State relying
upon the reasons assigned in the impugned
order submits that since the petitioner is
convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 364 of the I.P. Code, his application
to release him on parole has been rightly
turned down.

¶41

6]We have given careful consideration
to the rival submissions of the learned

¶42

counsel appearing for the parties. With their
able assistance, we have perused the
pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto,
and in particular the aforesaid Notification

¶43

dated 26 th August, 2016. Admittedly, the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 364 of the I.P.Code. The provisions of the aforesaid

¶44

Notification do not allow to consider the
prayer for release on furlough / parole to
the convict, who is sentenced for offences

¶45

825.18 Cri.WP

¶46

¶47

such as dacoity, terrorist crimes, mutiny
against state, kidnapping for ransom,
smuggling of narcotic or psychotropic
substances, rape or rape with murder. As
already observed, in the present case the

¶48

petitioner has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 364 of the I.P. Code

¶49

for kidnapping and not for kidnapping for
ransom. Section 364-A provides for punishment
of death or life imprisonment for the
commission of offence of kidnapping for
ransom. Section 364-A of the I.P. Code reads
thus:

¶50

364-A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [any foreign State or intentional inter - governmental organisation or any other person] to

¶51

825.18 Cri.WP

¶52

¶53

do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶54

7]Since the petitioner is not
convicted for the offence of kidnapping for
ransom, in our opinion, the application of
the petitioner for release him on parole
should not have been rejected on the ground
that in view of the Rule 3 [b] [13] of the
Rules of 2016, a convict, who is sentenced
for offence of kidnapping for ransom; the
petitioner is not entitled to be released on
parole. There is no any other ground on which
the petitioner’s application has been
rejected.

¶55

8]In that view of the matter, the
impugned order dated 02.01.2018 passed by
respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside.
The application filed by the petitioner
stands restored to its original file. We
direct respondent no.2 to consider the said

¶56

825.18 Cri.WP

¶57

¶58

application afresh on the same police report,

¶59

which has already been received, as
expeditious as possible, however, within two
weeks from today. Needless to observe that
again the respondent authorities shall not
reject the prayer of the petitioner to
release him on parole on the ground which has
been assigned in the impugned order.

¶60

9]The Petition is allowed to the above
extent. The Rule is made absolute.

¶61

10]The office of the Public Prosecutor

¶62

to send copy of the order by fastest mode of
communication to the concerned authorities.

¶63

authenticated copy of this order.

¶64

DDC

Sharad S/O. Shyamsundar Pawale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad S/O. Shyamsundar Pawale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul S/O. Suresh Hatkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manjuviranna Kantayya Rai )C-4634) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S Ellora Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Saleem Ahmed Khan Moh.Bismillah Kha Vs City and Industrial Development of Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. through Its Chief Engineer

Haridas S/O. Yedoba Jadhav (C-5610) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rahul Chandrakant Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dinesh S/O. Nimba Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others