1 Cri.W.P. No. 73/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

954.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.73 OF 2021

Shankar S/o Vitthal Khare

age 30 years occupation convict

R/o Yellambghat, Renapur Dist. Latur

At present confined in Central Prison, Aurangabad

...Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra

Through : The Superintendent,

Central Jail, Aurangabad.

...Respondent

Mr. R.A. Jaiswal, Advocate for petitioner

Mr. S.J. Salgare, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respt./State

C ORAM

: T.V. NALAWADE &

M.G. SEWLIKAR

, JJ.

DATE : 5^th February, 2021

J U D G M E N T (PER : T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,

heard both the sides for final disposal.

2.

Present proceeding is filed for the relief of quashing and

setting aside the order made by the respondent dated 20/12/2020

and for a further direction to release the petitioner on emergency

parole under the State Government Notification dated 08/05/2020.

2 Cri.W.P. No. 73/2021

The submissions made and the record show that the petitioner was

convicted in two separate cases, like Special Case (POCSO) No.

16/2019 and he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six

months for offence punishable under the Prevention of Children from

Sexual Offences Act and he was directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-,

in-default of payment of fine he was to further suffer R.I. for one

month. The submissions made show that the petitioner has

undergone entire sentence which was given in this case and it

cannot be said that he is behind the bars for conviction in POCSO.

Case.

3.

The submissions made and the record show that the

petitioner was also convicted and sentenced for the offence

punishable U/Ss. 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code in other

case. For offence of murder, he is sentenced to suffer life

imprisonment and for offence punishable U/S. 392 of I.P.C., he is

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to

pay fine of Rs. 5000/-.

4.

The reasons for rejection of emergency parole are as

follows:

(I)

The petitioner is convicted for offence punishable U/S.

395 of I.P.C

3 Cri.W.P. No. 73/2021

(II)

The petitioner is convicted for offence punishable under

the Special Enactment, like POCSO., and so he is not

entitled to emergency parole under the aforesaid State

Government Notification.

(III) That the petitioner had not availed parole or furlough in

the past even on single occasion.

5.

At the outset, it needs to mention that the petitioner is

not convicted for offence punishable U/S. 395 of I.P.C. though he is

convicted for offence punishable U/S. 392 of I.P.C. Rule 4(2) of the

Prisons (Bombay Furlough & Parole) Rules, 1959, as amended

recently runs as under:

“4. When prisoners shall not be granted furlough:-

All Indian prisoners except from following categories

whose annual conduct reports are good shall be eligible

for furlough:

(1) ………………….

(2) Prisoners convicted of offences under sections 392 to

402 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (Prisoners

may be eligible for furlough after completion of

stipulated sentence in the respective Section). ”

6.

This Rule shows that if there is conviction for offence

punishable U/S. 392 of I.P.C. he becomes eligible for furlough after

completion of stipulated sentence in respect of this section.

Admittedly he has completed the jail term of the sentence given for

4 Cri.W.P. No. 73/2021

offence punishable U/S. 392 of I.P.C. if the period behind the bars is

considered. Today a statemen