Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ayyaz Khan Zabaz Khan, a life convict under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the order dated 19/10/2020 passed by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Amravati, rejecting his application dated 6/10/2020 for release on parole on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rejection was based on Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which requires that the prisoner must have been released and returned on time on the last two occasions. The petitioner had returned on the due date on the last occasion but had not been released on two prior occasions. The court, relying on the decision in Milind Ashok Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., held that the condition cannot be construed pedantically and must be applied practically. The court noted that the purpose of the amendment was decongestion of prisons due to the pandemic, and the situation had changed since the notification. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's application afresh in light of the observations.
Headnote
A) Prisons Law - Parole - COVID-19 - Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - Condition of release and timely return on last two occasions - The court held that the condition cannot be construed in a pedantic manner and must be applied practically; a condition impossible to perform cannot be used to deny the benefit of parole, especially when the purpose of the amendment was decongestion of prisons due to COVID-19 pandemic (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition of release and timely return on the last two occasions under Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 can be strictly applied to deny parole to a life convict who had returned on due date on the last occasion, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 19/10/2020 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for parole afresh in light of the observations made in the judgment, within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules
- 1959 must be construed practically
- not pedantically
- impossible conditions cannot be applied to deny parole benefit
- purpose of COVID-19 amendment was decongestion of prisons.
