The court has the discretion to grant regular parole instead of emergency parole (Covid-19) based on the seriousness of the offense and the petitioner's previous instances of parole leave.

JUDGMENT

MANISH PITALE,J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. A letter dated 16/10/2020 was addressed by the petitioner to this court seeking relief of being released on emergency parole (Covid- 19). Prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for the aforesaid relief was rejected by order/letter dated 19/09/2020 passed by respondent Superintendent, Nashik-Road Central Prison.

3. By order dated 12/04/2021, this Court passed an order appointing Advocate Mr. Abhishek Bhadang from the legal aid panel to appear on behalf of petitioner before this Court. Accordingly, today, when the petition was listed for consideration, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Bhadang was heard on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Thakre, learned PP submitted a report dated 26/04/2021 before this Court.

4. Mr. Bhadang, learned counsel appointed to appear on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already undergone more than 23 years of imprisonment. It was submitted that even though he is a convict in the Mumbai railway bomb blast case that occurred in the year 1998 and he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, on four earlier occasions, the petitioner was released by respondent state authorities on furlough/parole. It was submitted that in this backdrop, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of emergency parole (Covid-19) ought to have been accepted. By inviting attention of this court to the impugned order dated 19/09/2020, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only reason why the prayer was rejected was, that he was convicted in the said bomb blast case that on one occasion, after being released on furlough leave, petitioner had reported late by 14 days. According to the petitioner, this reason stated in the impugned order is not sustainable and that the petitioner deserves to be granted relief of emergency parole (Covid-19).

5. On the other hand, learned PP, submitted that while convicting the petitioner for aforesaid serious offence concerning Mumbai railway bomb blast case, Sessions Court itself had specifcally recorded that State Government is directed not to act liberally, while entertaining any request of the accused for commutation or remission of sentence, considering the seriousness of nature of offence committed by the accused. By placing emphasis on the same, learned PP submitted that petitioner did not deserve to be treated in a liberal manner. Apart from this, it was submitted that admittedly, the petitioner had reported late by 14 days on one occasion while being released on furlough leave. Learned PP further submitted that considering the present condition of the number of inmates in the Nashik-Road Central prison, the petitioner did not deserve to be released on emergency parole (Covid-19).

6. Heard learned counsel for rival parties and also considered the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has already undergone more than 23 years of imprisonment for being convicted in a serious case involving serial bomb blasts in trains in Mumbai in the year 1998. Yet, record shows that despite serious nature of offence for which the petitioner stood convicted and even when the Sessions Court had made the aforementioned observations while convicting and sentencing the petitioner, respondents themselves had granted furlough/parole leave to the petitioner on four earlier occasions. Perusal of the impugned order dated 19/09/2020 shows that on earlier occasions, respondent authorities itself had granted parole leave to the petitioner.

7. It is also clear from the record that the petitioner reported back on time on three occasions and only on one occasion, he reported late by 14 days. It is sought to be explained on behalf of the petitioner that even on this occasion, when he returned late after 14 days, the petitioner had applied for extension of his parole leave and such applicati