Allowed

Indarsing S/O Padkya Pawara v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Sept 2021WP/3350/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay relaxed the parole conditions imposed on the petitioner. The court held that insisting on a government servant as a surety frustrates the purpose of emergency parole. The order was modified to allow an independent solvent surety instead, while retaining a family member or relative guarantor.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.5 modified to allow an independent solvent surety instead of a government servant; petitioner to remain on emergency parole complying with other conditions.

Indarsing S/O Padkya Pawara Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2021.09.28 10:18:19 +0530

¶2

(9) cri.wp-3350.21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3350 OF 2021

¶5

Indarsing S/o Padkya Pawara
Versus
State of Maharashtra

¶6

: Petitioner.

¶7

: Respondent.

¶8

Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal for the Petitioner.
Mr. J P Yagnik, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶9

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

¶10

DATE :27th September 2021

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 Heard Mr. Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Yagnik, the learned APP for the State.

¶13

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent
of learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

3The Petitioner being aggrieved by the condition No.5 of the order
dated 09/06/2021 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.20,000/- and a personal recognizance bond of Rs.10,000/-. In

¶15

1 of 4

¶16

lgc

¶17

(9) cri.wp-3350.21.odt

¶18

addition, the Petitioner shall furnish one surety who shall be of government
servant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and one surety who shall be of his relative in
the sum of Rs.20,000/-.

¶19

4Mr. Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 said condition.

¶20

5On the other hand, the learned APP supports the impugned order.
A copy of the notification dated 26th August, 2016 is tendered for the perusal of
this Court. In Rule No.24A of the Notification, the categories of persons who
can be be accepted as sureties are indicated. It provides that two of the sureties
shall be;

¶21

(i) State or Central Government servant, or

¶22

(ii) Elected office bearers or

¶23

(iii) Family members having good conduct or

¶24

(iv) Fiends and relatives having good conduct.

¶25

6It is pertinent to note that Rule 24A has since been substituted by
notification dated 14th April 2018, in any event, if the said notification is
considered as a guideline, the aforesaid prescription does not provide that the

¶26

2 of 4

¶27

lgc

¶28

(9) cri.wp-3350.21.odt

¶29

surety must be a government servant. Sureties can be from any of the four
categories.

¶30

7In that view of the matter, the purpose for which the surety is
insisted upon would be served, if an option as given to the Petitioner to furnish
a surety who satisfied the qualification provided in categories Nos.3 and 4 i.e.
(iii) Family Members having good conduct and (iv) relatives having good
conduct.

¶31

8In our view, insistence on furnishing a surety who is a government
servant may, in a given case, frustrate the very objection of directing the
released of the prisoner on emergency parole. Such a condition operates
onerously.

¶32

9Thus, the Petition deserves to be allowed by modifying the

¶33

Condition No.5 to the aforesaid extent.

¶34

10Upon the Petitioner complying with the rest of the conditions and
furnishing independent solvent surety, the Petitioner be released on Emergency
Covid-19 Parole. The aforesaid independent solvent surety is in lieu of
furnishing surety who is a government servant. In addition, as already
observed in the impugned order of the Respondent-Authority, the Petitioner to

¶35

3 of 4

¶36

lgc

¶37

(9) cri.wp-3350.21.odt

¶38

furnish one more surety, who is his family member, friend or relative having
good conduct.

¶39

11 The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶40

12 Rule made absolute to above extent.

¶41

13 All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶42

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

¶43

4 of 4

¶44

lgc

Indarsing S/O Padkya Pawara v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indarsing S/O Padkya Pawara 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nalini Pravinchandra Kapadia and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sagar Kishor Naik and Ors. Vs Meghna Sagar Naik Alias Meghna Pankaj Kulkarni and Ors.

Abhishek Bhupendra Rathi and Ors. Vs Hema Abhishek Rathi Nee Ms Hema Dinesh Manihar W/O Abhishek Rathi and Anr.

Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhanwa S. Gondhalekar S/O Sudhir S. Gondhalekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Piyush Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.