Partly allowed

Sharafat Ali Liyakat Ali v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Feb 2021WP/183/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay partly allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an emergency Covid-19 parole application. While accepting that past non-availing of leave cannot bar such applications, the court directed the prison authorities to reconsider the application afresh in light of changed prison conditions and current infrastructure capabilities.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; petitioner granted liberty to apply afresh for emergency Covid-19 parole, requiring respondent to dispose of it within two weeks.

Sharafat Ali Liyakat Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1/4 Judgment WP-183-21.doc

¶2

Mandira Salgaonkar

¶3

Digitally signed by Mandira Salgaonkar Date: 2021.02.23 22:52:39 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.183 OF 2021

¶7

Sharafat Ali Liyakat Ali]
R/o Room No.14, Madani Masjid,]
Bainganwadi, Shivajinagar,]
Govandi, Mumbai – 400043]
(At presently lodged in Nashik Road ]
Central Prison)]
].. Petitioner

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1.The State of Maharashtra]
]
2. The Superintendent of Jail,]
Nashik Road Prison]
].. Respondents

¶10

Mr.Ashish Shastri i/b Mr.Aniket Vagal for the
Petitioner.

¶11

Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶12

CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &

¶13

 MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 15th FEBRUARY, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON: 23rd FEBRUARY, 2021

¶14

JUDGMENT(PER MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶15

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.

¶16

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18^th September, 2020 passed by respondent No.2 whereby

¶17

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶18

2/4 Judgment WP-183-21.doc

¶19

application for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole for a period of
45 days was rejected.

¶20

3.Although it is nowhere stated in the writ petition as to for
which offence the petitioner has been convicted and hence,
undergoing imprisonment, from the report forwarded by the learned
APP, it is gathered that the petitioner stood convicted by judgment
and order of the Sessions Court dated 14th October, 2015, for offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. He stood sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

¶21

4.In view of Covid-19 pandemic and the amendment in the
Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the petitioner
applied for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole. The application
was rejected by the aforesaid impugned order only on the ground
that the petitioner had not availed of furlough leave, even once in
past.

¶22

5.Mr.Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submitted that the only ground stated in the impugned order was
unsustainable because the amendment brought in the Prisons
(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 was specifically intended
to give relief of emergency Covid-19 parole to convicts like the
petitioner and that non availing of facility of furlough leave or
parole even once before, could not be a ground for rejecting the
application of the petitioner. It was submitted that the application of
the petitioner was not considered properly on merits at all by
respondent No.2.

¶23

6. On the other hand, Mrs.Shinde, learned APP appeared on

¶24

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶25

3/4 Judgment WP-183-21.doc

¶26

behalf of the respondent/State and opposed the grant of emergency
Covid-19 parole. It was submitted that now the situation in the
Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik had changed substantially. It
was submitted that the number of inmates in the said prison are less
than the capacity. It was submitted that there is no crowd in the jail
and that the authorities had sufficient infrastructure now to
immediately take care of any inmate or staff, who may suffers from
Covid-19 virus. On this basis, it was submitted that the petitioner
could be permitted to apply afresh for grant of emergency Covid-19
parole.

¶27

7.The ground raised on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the
impugned order appears to be justified because this Court has
already taken a view in case of Kalyan s/o Bansidharrao Renge Vs.
The State of Maharashta & Anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No.ASDB-LD-
VC 265 OF 2020) and Uzair @ Hujer S/o Rafiq Shaikh Vs. The State
of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No.2989 of 2020) that
non availing of parole or furlough leave, even once earlier, cannot be
a ground to reject the application for grant of emergency Covid-19
parole. To that extent, the case of the petitioner is clearly covered in
his favour.

¶28

8.Yet, the facts and figures stated in the report forwarded by the
learned APP show that now the situation at the Nashik Road Central
Prison has changed substantially. The number of inmates in the jail
are less than the capacity of the jail, indicating that there is no over
crowding as of now. It is also reported that the inmates presently
are not infected by Covid-19 virus and that the regular rapid antigen
tests are being undertaken. We are of the opinion that the ground

¶29

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶30

4/4 Judgment WP-183-21.doc

¶31

situation in the light of the said report cannot be ignored and that
there is substance in the contention raised by the learned APP that
the request of the petitioner for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole
can be considered afresh.

¶32

9.In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is granted
liberty to apply afresh for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole. In
case, such an application is submitted by the petitioner, respondent
No.2 shall dispose of the same, within two weeks of submission of
such application, in the light of the circumstances prevailing as on
today and in terms of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole)
Rules, 1959.

¶33

10.The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Rule is
discharged accordingly.

¶34

 (MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶35

 (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

¶36

M.M.Salgaonkar

Sharafat Ali Liyakat Ali v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharafat Ali Liyakat Ali 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

Rahul Dhanwan Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandrprakash B. Lodha Vs Rukmini Baban Kadam and Anr.

Subodh Subash Runwal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh Ramkaran Maurya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Riyaz Chandpasha Pathan Vs the Superintendent of Police Pune and Ors.

Akshay S/O. Jayant Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.