Allowed

Deepak @ Wireless S/O. Subhash Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC24 Jan 2019WP/1460/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed a criminal writ petition seeking parole. Despite recent prison rules disqualifying offenders of rape and robbery from parole, the court invoked the principle that penal rules operate prospectively. Considering the petitioner's past compliance, punishment for previous escape, and his ailing son, the court directed parole release.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner on parole leave pursuant to his application dated 4th May, 2018. Rule made absolute.

Deepak @ Wireless S/O. Subhash Shinde Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1460 OF 2018

¶3

Deepak @ Wireless s/o Subhash Shinde,
Age : 41 years, Occu. Nil, Convict No.6215,
R/o at Sanjay Nagar, Tq. Georai,
District Beed, at present in
Central Prison, AurangabadPETITIONER

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶6

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad

¶7

3. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mrs. Bharati B. Gunjal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the respondents/State

¶10

CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶11

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 17th JANUARY, 2019
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 24th JANUARY, 2019

¶12

JUDGMENT (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.):

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶14

the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶15

learned A.P.P., heard finally.

¶16

criwp1460-2018

¶17

¶18

2.The petitioner, by this Writ Petition, under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks
direction to the respondents for his release on parole
leave.

¶19

3. Perused the documents relied upon.

¶20

4.The petitioner was convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 395, 396 and 397 of the Indian
Penal Code (“IPC”, for short) and sentenced to suffer
life imprisonment. The petitioner's proposal for his
release on parole has been rejected mainly on the ground
of he having been convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 395 and 397 of the IPC.

¶21

5.The learned A.P.P. has relied on newly amended
Rules 4(2) and 4(3) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai
Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2018 (“Rules of
2018”,forshort),whereunderthereisa
disqualification for the release on furlough, of one
who has been convicted of the offences punishable under
Sections 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the IPC.

¶22

6.The aims and objects of the scheme behind grant
of parole and furlough are as under :-

¶23

criwp1460-2018

¶24

¶25

(i)To enable the inmate to maintain continuity
with his family life and deal with the family
matters;

¶26

(ii)To save the inmate from the evil effects of
continuous prison life;

¶27

(iii)To enable the inmate to maintain constructive
hope and active interest in the life.

¶28

.Furlough/parole is to enable the prisoner to

¶29

have family association and to avoid ill-effects of
continuous prison life. In other words, a prisoner is
accorded social interaction, man being a social animal.
Social life is brought into existence periodically for a
prisoner by providing furlough/parole.

¶30

7.In the past, the petitioner had been released
on furlough. He returned jail on the days on which his
furlough/parole leave was to over. The petitionr has

¶31

now sought for parole leave so as to meet his ailing
son. The medical certificate is on record. Rules 4(2)
and 4 (3) of the Rules of 2018 creating disqualification

¶32

for release on furlough and parole on the ground of
there being conviction for the offences punishable under

¶33

Sections 392 to 402 of the IPC, have been recently
introduced. The Rule is penal in nature. It needs no
mention that penal provision always operates

¶34

4 criwp1460-2018

¶35

prospectively. The issue in this regard has been
referred to for a decision by a Full Bench of this
Court.

¶36

8.It is true that this Court dismissed Criminal
Writ Petition being No.1315 of 2018, on the ground of
petitioner therein having been convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 376 and 394 of the

¶37

IPC. The said Writ Petition was dismissed in view of the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case. The
petitioner therein was facing five more prosecutions for
the offences punishable under Sections 395, 399, 402 224
and 379 of the IPC.

¶38

9.The petitioner had been released on furlough/
parole in the past. True, once he had jumped furlough.
For the said lapse, he has been duly punished.
Considering the object behind grant of furlough/parole
and in view of the fact that the son of the petitioner
is not keeping well, we are inclined to allow the
petition in terms of the following order.

¶39

10.The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Aurangabad – respondent No.3 herein is directed to
release the petitioner on parole leave pursuant to his

¶40

criwp1460-2018

¶41

¶42

application dated 4th May, 2018. Rule is made absolute

¶43

accordingly. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶44

[R.G. AVACHAT][S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGEJUDGE

¶45

npj/criwp1460-2018

Deepak @ Wireless S/O. Subhash Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak @ Wireless S/O. Subhash Shinde 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

Babasaheb Balbhim Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Girish S/O. Gangaram Chitta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Madhav Digambar Sabanwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jamil Khan Fida Husain Mewati and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abhijit S/O. Pratap Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sushma Ravindra More Vs the Union of India and Others