1 CRI.WP90-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 90/2022

(GAJANAN BABULAL BATTULWAR (C/9971)(INJAIL) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER)

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order

and Registrar's orders.

Shri R.L. Kadu, counsel for the petitioner.

Mrs.Nandita Tiwari with Ms H.N. Jaipurkar, A.P.P. for the respondents.

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G. A. SANAP

, JJ.

D ATE

: FEBRUARY 11

, 202

2 .

The petitioner seeks his release on emergency parole for the marriage of

his niece. The application for such emergency release has been rejected by the

Senior Prison Officer on 13.01.2022 giving the reason that such release is not

permissible under Rule 19(1) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole),

Rules 1959.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits by referring to the

averments in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the marriage of his nephew

(sic. niece) is fixed on 14.02.2022 and there is no Karta in the family as the

father of the said niece expired on 29.08.2019. Alongwith the writ petition the

marriage invitation card has been annexed.

Rule 19(1)(A) of the said Rules reads as under:

“19.

When a prisoner may be released on emergency parole:-

(1)

Emergency Parole. --

(A)

All convicted prisoners except foreigner and death sentenced

prisoners may be eligible for emergency parole for 14 days for death of

parental grandfather or grandmother/ father/mother/spouse/

son/daughter/sibling and delivery of wife (except high security risk

prisoner) after confirmation by the police and marriage of son/

daughter/ sibling and delivery of wife (except high security risk

prisoner) after confirmation by the police provided that no extension

can be granted to emergency parole,”

2 CRI.WP90-22.odt

It can be seen that emergency parole is not admissible for marriage of

niece under that Rule. On that count, the reason assigned by the Senior Prison

Officer appears to be correct.

We find from perusal of the marriage invitation card that besides the

name of the petitioner, names of two other persons, Shri Krishnamurthi and Shri

Rajesh are mentioned. The petitioner’s name is the third name on the said card.

Judicial note can be taken of the fact that if the name of the petitioner is shown

at Serial Number 3 and the names of Shri Krishnamurthi and Shri Rajesh being

stated prior to that of the petitioner, they would be elder to the petitioner. There

is no statement in the writ petition that these two persons named in the

marriage invitation card are not the brothers of the petitioner. Hence the

statement that there is no Karta in the family prima-facie is not acceptable in

view of the marriage invitation card.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely upon the

decision in Asfaq Versus State of Rajasthan & Others [(2017) 15 SCC 55] to

support the prayer for release on parole. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, it

is seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to various situations under

which parole could normally be granted. Therein it was found that the matter

was governed by the Rules of the Central Government framed in the year 1955

and it was felt that it was necessary to update those Rules. In the present case

the field is governed by the Rules of 1959 as amended as recently on 13.07.2021

and as such provision for release on parole for the marriage of niece does not

find place therein, the aforesaid decision would not come to the aid of the

petitioner.

Hence for aforesaid reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

(G. A. SANAP, J.)

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

APTE

Signed By: Digitally signed

byROHIT DATTATRAYA

APTE

Signing Date:11.0