Allowed

Rakesh Mukhnath Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2021WP/2728/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court of India quashed and modified condition No. 5 of the order granting emergency parole, replacing the requirement for a government servant surety with a family member, friend, or relative having good conduct.

What did the court decide?

The order was modified to allow release on parole if the petitioner furnishes a surety who is a family member, friend, or relative having good conduct.

Rakesh Mukhnath Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

903-wp-2728-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2728 OF 2021

¶4

Rakesh Mukhnath Sharma

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Aniket Vagal, for the Petitioner Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶10

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

¶11

DATE : AUGUST 04, 2021

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

. Heard Mr. Vagal, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶14

Mrs. Shinde, learned APP for the State.

¶15

Rule. In view of the limited nature of the challenge, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard fnally.

¶16

The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition No. 5 of the order dated 12^th June, 2021 whereby he is ordered to be released on emergency Covid 19 Parole. The said condition stipulates that the petitioner shall furnish cash security of Rs. 30,000/- and a personal recognizance of Rs. 25,000/-. In addition, the petitioner shall furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- each, one of whom shall be a government servant, and another a relative.

¶17

Mr. Vagal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

1/3

Vishal Parekar

903-wp-2728-2021.doc

that the aforesaid condition of furnishing surety, who is a government servant, is harsh and the petitioner’s right to be released on parole is virtually defeated by imposing the said condition.

¶22

In opposition to this, Mrs. Shinde, learned APP supports the impugned order. A copy of the notifcation dated 26^th August, 2016 is tendered for the perusal of the Court. In Rule No. 24A of the Notifcation, the categories of persons who can be accepted as sureties are indicated. It provides that two of the sureties shall be

¶23

(i) State or Central Government servant, or

¶24

(ii) Elected offce bearers or

¶25

(iii) Family members having good conduct or

¶26

(iv) Friends and relatives having good conduct.

¶27

We must record that Rule 24A has since been substituted by notifcation dated 14^th April, 2018. In any event, if the said notifcation is considered as a guideline, the aforesaid prescription does not provide that the surety must be a government servant. Sureties can be from any of the four categories.

¶28

In this view of the matter, the purpose for which the

2/3

Vishal Parekar

903-wp-2728-2021.doc

surety is insisted upon would be served if an option as given to the petitioner to furnish a surety who satisfes the qualifcation provided in category Nos. 3 and 4 namely (iii) Family members having good conduct (iv) Friends and relatives having good conduct.

¶33

In our view, insistence on furnishing a surety who is a government servant may, in a given case, frustrate the very object of directing the release of the prisoner on emergency parole. Such a condition operates onerously.

¶34

Thus the petition deserves to be allowed by modifying the condition No. 5 to the aforesaid extent.

¶35

Upon the petitioner complying with the rest of the conditions, the petitioner be released on furnishing a surety who is a family member, friend or relative having good conduct, instead of a government servant.

¶36

The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶37

Rule made absolute.

¶38

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this

¶39

order.

¶40

3/3

¶41

Vishal Parekar

Rakesh Mukhnath Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Mukhnath Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghansham Dattatraya Tambde Vs Director General of Police (Prison) Amaharashtra State and Ors.

Vijaykumar Hanumant Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr Nilelsh Laxmikant Kudalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rohit S Kamble Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Prabhakar @ Bablu Ashok Polkam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Mukhnath Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.