Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a reference made by a division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad regarding its territorial jurisdiction to entertain a criminal writ petition filed by a prisoner, Guddu @ Kansha Wahab Shaikh. The prisoner had applied for emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(C) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, introduced in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Nashik, rejected the application on 28 September 2020, citing that the prisoner had not availed parole or furlough on two earlier occasions and had not completed three years in jail. Aggrieved, the prisoner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1362 of 2020 before the Aurangabad Bench, which allowed the petition and granted emergency parole. Subsequently, the State filed Criminal Application No. 2073 of 2020, contending that the Aurangabad Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction because the order of rejection was passed at Nashik, which falls within the territorial limits of the Principal Seat at Mumbai. The division bench, noting conflicting decisions on the issue, referred the question of jurisdiction to a larger bench. The larger bench examined the relevant rules, including the Bombay High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Benches and Additional Benches) Rules, 1975, and the factual matrix. It observed that the prisoner was confined in a prison located in Jalgaon district, which is within the Aurangabad Bench's territorial jurisdiction, and that the rejection order was communicated to him there. The court held that part of the cause of action arose within the Aurangabad Bench's territory, and therefore, the bench had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The reference was answered accordingly, and the matter was directed to be placed before the appropriate division bench for further proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - High Court Bench Jurisdiction - Bombay High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Benches and Additional Benches) Rules, 1975 - The issue was whether the Aurangabad Bench could entertain a writ petition against a parole rejection order passed at Nashik Central Prison, which lies within the Principal Seat's territory. The court held that since the prisoner was confined in a prison within the Aurangabad Bench's territorial jurisdiction (Jalgaon district) and the cause of action arose partly there, the Aurangabad Bench had jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10) B) Prisons - Parole - Emergency Parole - Rule 19(1)(C) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The respondent's emergency parole application was rejected by the Superintendent of Nashik Central Prison on grounds of not having availed parole earlier and not completing three years in jail. The division bench had granted parole, and the reference was on jurisdiction, not merits. (Paras 2-3) C) Jurisdiction - Cause of Action - Territorial Nexus - The court reasoned that the rejection order was served on the prisoner in Jalgaon district (within Aurangabad Bench's jurisdiction), and the prisoner's confinement was in a prison under the administrative control of the Aurangabad region. Thus, part of the cause of action arose within the Aurangabad Bench's territorial limits. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a criminal writ petition challenging an order of rejection of emergency parole passed by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nashik, which is located within the territorial limits of the Principal Seat at Mumbai.
Final Decision
The reference is answered holding that the Aurangabad Bench has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the criminal writ petition. The matter is directed to be placed before the appropriate division bench for further proceedings.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Parole Rules
- Emergency parole
- COVID-19 pandemic
- Prison jurisdiction
- High Court bench jurisdiction
