Allowed

Anil Jagannath Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC26 Jul 2021WP/2493/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of a direction to surrender after emergency parole expiry. Relying on the Prison Rules and Supreme Court directives, the Court held no application was needed for extension and ordered further parole release.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on emergency parole as a continuation of the order dated 31.05.2021.

Anil Jagannath Yadav Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2021.07.26 18:37:13 +0530

¶2

(8) cri.wp-2493.21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2493 OF 2021

¶5

Anil Jagannath Yadav]
Age 29 years]
Row House No.03, Sai Row House,]
Upendra Nagar, Cidco, Nashik]
(presently lodged in Nashik Road Central Prison]
(At presently out on Parole Leave)]….. Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ]
Through the Superintendent of Jail]
(Nashik Road Central Prison]
Jail Road, Nashik 422101]….. Respondent.

¶8

Mr. Bharat K Manghani for the Petitioner.
Mrs. A S Pai, PP for the Respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

¶10

DATE :26th JULY 2021

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER N. J. JAMADAR, J)

¶12

.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the

¶13

counsel for the parties, heard finally.

¶14

2The Petitioner has preferred this Petition for quashing and setting
aside the order dated 31st May 2021 passed by the Superintendent of Prison,

¶15

lgc 1 of 4

¶16

(8) cri.wp-2493.21.odt

¶17

Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik i.e. the Respondent No.1 whereby the
Petitioner was directed to surrender on 16th July 2021 after completion of the
period of 45 days from the day on which the Petitioner was released on
emergency parole by order dated 31st May 2021 by invoking the provisions
contained in Rule 19(1)(c) of the Prisons ( Bombay Furlough and Parole)
Rules 1959.

¶18

3The substance of the Petition is that the direction for surrendering
the Petitioner, after expiry of 1st period of 45 days, while notification issued
under the Epidemics Act still remains in force, is in breach of the Rule 19(1)(c)
of the Prisons ( Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 which mandates
that the said period be extended by a further period of 30 days at a time or till
the notification issued under the Epidemic Act remains in force.

¶19

4It appears that during pendency of this Petition, the Petitioner has
surrendered on 16th July 2021 in accordance with the impugned order.
However, the fact remains that the Petitioner had sought extension of the
period of Covid-19 Emergency Parole by a block of 30 days.

¶20

5A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nagnath s/o Sakharam
Mane v/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr. in Criminal Application No.4118

¶21

of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2019 has held that it is not obligatory for

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

lgc

¶24

(8) cri.wp-2493.21.odt

¶25

a prisoner, who released on emergency parole, to file an application for
extension of parole. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 19(1)(c), the
authorities are required to extend the period by a block of 30 days at a time.
In paragraphs 41 and 42 of the said judgment, the Full Bench has held as
under :-

¶26

“41.It emerges that –

¶27

(a) -----------

¶28

(b) it is not that necessarily prisoner would have to
make an application seeking extension of emergency
parole prior to completion of initial parole of forty five
days as well as even for further extensions in blocks of
thirty days till the notification under the ED Act is in
force.

¶29

42. Issues referred to us are answered as under:

¶30

1.

¶31

2. Under the language employed in the text of rule
19 (1) (C) (i) in second sentence, by auto operation the
emergency parole gets extended obviating an application
for its extension.”

¶32

6 Moreover, the Supreme Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1

¶33

of 2020by its order dated 16th July 2021 passed certain directions to arrest the

¶34

spread of infection. In continuation of earlier directions to arrest the spread of

¶35

infection, the Supreme Court passed, inter-alia, the following directions :-

¶36

“So far as those prisoners who have already been
released on bail from the prison by virtue of Orders
passed by this Court from time to time and on the basis

¶37

3 of 4

¶38

lgc

¶39

(8) cri.wp-2493.21.odt

¶40

of recommendations of High Powered Committees
constituted for the purpose are concerned, they shall not
be asked to surrender to the prison, until further orders”

¶41

7In the aforesaid view of the matter, in our view, it may not been
appropriate to again direct the Petitioner to make an application for releasing
him on emergency parole The fact that the Petitioner has surrendered on his
own in accordance with the impugned order dated 31st May 2021, underscores
the bonafide of the Petitioner. Conversely, it indicates that the authorities had
not taken steps to secure the presence of the Petitioner. We are therefore
persuaded to direct the Respondent – Jail Authority to pass appropriate order
of release of the Petitioner on emergency parole in continuation of the order
dated 31st May 2021 on usual terms and conditions as the Respondent -
Superintendent of Prison Nashik may find suitable in the facts of the case.

¶42

8The Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute.

¶43

[N. J. JAMADAR, J][S. S. SHINDE , J]

¶44

4 of 4

¶45

lgc

Anil Jagannath Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Jagannath Yadav 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 Laxmiprasad Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Omprakash Goenka Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Thr Additional Chief Secretary Home Department Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation Thr Its Superintendent of Police

Vishal Sahduram Ridhlan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganapathy Moturu and Ors. Vs Madhavilatha Sathyanarayanan Moturu and Ors.

Gunvantrao Raghunath Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.