Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abhijit s/o Baban Pawar, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of his application for Covid-19 parole by the respondent authorities. The impugned order dated 25th January 2021 (Exhibit 'L') rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was not earlier released once or twice on furlough or parole. The petitioner argued that this ground was legally unsustainable and relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Kavita w/o Dilip Baviskar vs. State of Maharashtra, which held that merely because a petitioner was released once and not twice in the past on parole/furlough cannot be a ground for rejecting an application for emergency parole. The State, through the learned APP, submitted that if the petitioner files a fresh application, the authorities would consider it on its merits. The court, considering the fast spread of Covid-19 virus and the exposition of law in the cited case, partly allowed the petition. It set aside the impugned order and directed respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's prayer for Covid-19 parole afresh, in accordance with law, and pass an appropriate order within a stipulated period. The court held that the ground of not being earlier released once or twice is not sustainable for rejecting an emergency parole application.
Headnote
A) Prisons and Parole - Covid-19 Emergency Parole - Consideration of Application - The rejection of an application for Covid-19 parole solely on the ground that the petitioner was not earlier released once or twice on furlough or parole is not sustainable in law. The court directed the respondent to consider the application afresh, keeping in view the fast spread of Covid-19 virus. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for Covid-19 parole on the ground that he was not earlier released once or twice on furlough or parole is legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The petition is partly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The impugned order dated 25th January 2021 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner's prayer for releasing him on Covid-19 Parole afresh, in accordance with law, and pass an appropriate order within a stipulated period.
Law Points
- Covid-19 parole
- emergency parole
- ground of not being released earlier not sustainable
- consideration afresh
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (04) 65
Criminal Writ Petition No.78 of 2021
S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Mr.S.B. Talekar i/b Talekar & Associates for the Petitioner, Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP, for Respondent – State
State of Maharashtra & others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging rejection of application for Covid-19 parole.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order rejecting his Covid-19 parole application and sought direction to release him on Covid-19 parole.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application for Covid-19 parole was rejected on the ground that he was not earlier released once or twice on furlough or parole, which he contended was legally unsustainable.
Previous Decisions
The impugned order dated 25th January 2021 (Exhibit 'L') passed by respondent No.3 rejected the petitioner's application for Covid-19 parole.
Issues
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for Covid-19 parole on the ground that he was not earlier released once or twice on furlough or parole is legally sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the ground of not being earlier released once or twice is not sustainable, relying on the judgment in Milind Ashok Patil & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and Kavita w/o. Dilip Baviskar vs. State of Maharashtra.
The learned APP submitted that if the petitioner files a fresh application, the respondent authorities will consider the same on its own merits.
Ratio Decidendi
Merely because a petitioner was not earlier released once or twice on furlough or parole cannot be a ground for rejecting an application for emergency parole, especially in the context of the fast spread of Covid-19 virus. The authorities must consider such applications on their own merits.
Judgment Excerpts
Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not earlier released once / twice. The said ground is not sustainable in view of the exposition of law in the case dealt with by the Bombay High Court at its Aurangabad Bench in the case of Kavita w/o. Dilip Baviskar vs. The State of Maharashtra.
For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The impugned order dated 25th January, 2021 (Exhibit ‘L’) passed by respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on Covid-19 Parole afresh, in accordance with law, and pass an appropriate order within a stipulated period.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 25th January 2021 passed by respondent No.3 rejecting his application for Covid-19 parole. The petition was heard finally with consent of parties.
