Partly allowed

Ramesh Ramkaran Maurya v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Feb 2021WP/187/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court partly allowed a writ petition challenging rejection of emergency Covid-19 parole. It quashed the order holding non-availing of earlier leave as a bar but granted liberty to apply afresh due to reduced prison population and tested infrastructure.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner granted liberty to apply afresh for emergency Covid-19 parole; respondent to decide within two weeks.

Ramesh Ramkaran Maurya Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1/4 Judgment WP-187-21.doc

¶2

Mandira Salgaonkar

¶3

Digitally signed by Mandira Salgaonkar Date: 2021.02.23 22:52:18 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.187 OF 2021

¶7

Ramesh Ramkaran Maurya]
R/o 13, A E Ekta Society,]
Sangharsha Nagar, Chandiwali]
Saki Naka, Andheri (East),]
Mumbai – 400072]
(Presently lodged in Yerwada Open ]
District Prison)].. Petitioner

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1.The State of Maharashtra]
]
2. The Superintendent of Jail]
Yerwada Open 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 December, 2020 whereby the application for grant of

¶17

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶18

2/4 Judgment WP-187-21.doc

¶19

emergency Covid-19 parole submitted by the petitioner was rejected
by respondent No.2 on the ground that he had not availed of
furlough/parole leave even once earlier.

¶20

3.The petitioner is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment
imposed upon him as per judgment and order dated 20th April, 2013
passed by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

4.In view of the amendment in the Prisons (Bombay Furlough
and Parole) Rules, 1959 due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner
applied for grant of parole. As noted above, the application stood
rejected only on the ground that the petitioner had not availed of
furlough/parole leave even once earlier.

¶22

5.Mr.Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside because
a proper interpretation of the amended Rules would show that the
application for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole could not have
been rejected only on the ground of non availing of furlough/parole
leave even once earlier. It was submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the application was not considered on merits by
respondent No.2 and that therefore, the writ petition deserved to be
allowed.

¶23

6.On the other hand, Mrs.Shinde, learned APP appeared on
behalf of the respondent/State and opposed the grant of emergency
Covid-19 parole. It was submitted that now the situation in the
Yerwada Open District Prison had changed substantially. It was
submitted that the number of inmates in the said prison are less than

¶24

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶25

3/4 Judgment WP-187-21.doc

¶26

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.Having perused the contentions raised on behalf of the rival
parties, we are of the opinion that the ground of challenge raised on
behalf of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. In the 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), this Court has already
taken a view that non availing of furlough/parole even once earlier,
cannot be a ground for rejecting the application for grant of
emergency Covid-19 parole in view of the amended Prisons
(Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Therefore, to that
extent the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶28

8.But, at the same time, we cannot ignore the ground realities,
as pointed out by the learned APP on the basis of the report
forwarded by respondent No.2. It is evident from the record that as
on today, number of inmates in Yerwada Open District Prison are far
less than the authorised capacity and that there is no overcrowding
in the jail. There is no inmate, who is infected by Covid-19 virus as
on date and that there is regular RT-PCR testing of the staff and the
inmates being conducted. In view of the same, it becomes clear that
the request of the petitioner for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole
needs to be considered afresh, in the light of the changed

¶29

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶30

4/4 Judgment WP-187-21.doc

¶31

circumstances.

¶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

Ramesh Ramkaran Maurya v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Ramkaran Maurya v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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.

Sharafat Ali Liyakat Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra

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

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