Bombay High Court Allows Emergency Parole to Convict Under Amended Prison Rules During COVID-19 Epidemic. Convict Sentenced to Five Years Entitled to Favorable Consideration for Emergency Parole Under Rule 19(1)(C) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 191
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Mukesh s/o Ramshankar Shivhare, a convict serving rigorous imprisonment of five years in Central Prison, Nagpur, filed a Criminal Writ Petition seeking emergency parole under the amended Rule 19(1)(C) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. The amendment was introduced by notification dated 8th May 2020 in response to the COVID-19 epidemic declared under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The rule classifies convicts into two categories: those with maximum punishment of 7 years or less, whose applications for emergency parole are to be favorably considered by the Superintendent of Prison for 45 days (extendable in blocks of 30 days), and those with sentence above 7 years, whose applications are to be appropriately considered subject to timely return on last two releases. The petitioner, with a 5-year sentence, falls in the first category. The respondent State did not dispute the facts. The court held that the petitioner's application must be favorably considered and directed the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Nagpur, to release the petitioner on emergency parole for 45 days, subject to conditions including reporting to the concerned police station once every 30 days. The petition was allowed.

Headnote

A) Prison Law - Emergency Parole - Epidemic - Rule 19(1)(C) of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The amendment introduced clause (C) to Rule 19(1) on 8th May 2020, providing for emergency parole during an epidemic declared under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. For convicts with maximum punishment of 7 years or less, release on emergency parole for 45 days (extendable) is to be favorably considered by the Superintendent of Prison upon application. For convicts with sentence above 7 years, release is to be appropriately considered if the convict returned to prison on time on last two releases. The court held that the petitioner, sentenced to 5 years, falls in the first category and his application must be favorably considered. (Paras 4-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner, a convict sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment, is entitled to be considered for emergency parole under the amended Rule 19(1)(C) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, during the COVID-19 epidemic.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Nagpur, is directed to release the petitioner on emergency parole for a period of 45 days, subject to the condition that the petitioner reports to the concerned police station once every 30 days.

Law Points

  • Emergency parole
  • Epidemic Diseases Act
  • 1897
  • Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
  • 1959
  • Rule 19(1)(C)
  • COVID-19
  • Convict's right to be considered for parole
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (06) 22

L.D.-V.C. Criminal Writ Petition No. 137 of 2020

2020-06-02

Sunil B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor

Mr. N.H. Samundre for petitioner, Ms. T.H. Khan for respondent

Mukesh s/o Ramshankar Shivhare

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal Writ Petition seeking emergency parole under amended prison rules during COVID-19 epidemic.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought release on emergency parole for 45 days under Rule 19(1)(C) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

Filing Reason

Petitioner, a convict sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment, applied for emergency parole due to COVID-19 epidemic, but his application was not considered favorably.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for emergency parole under the amended Rule 19(1)(C) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he falls under the first category of convicts (maximum punishment 7 years or less) and thus his application for emergency parole must be favorably considered. Respondent State did not dispute the facts and submitted instructions.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Rule 19(1)(C) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, as amended on 8th May 2020, a convict sentenced to five years (maximum punishment 7 years or less) is entitled to favorable consideration for release on emergency parole during an epidemic declared under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

Judgment Excerpts

It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the present case has been convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, has been amended by the notification dated 8th May, 2020. For convicted Prisoners whose maximum punishment is 7 years or less, on their application shall be favorably considered for release on emergency parole by the Superintendent of Prison for a period of 45 days...

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking emergency parole. The court heard the matter via video conferencing on 2nd June 2020 and allowed the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959: Rule 19(1)(C)
  • Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal in Partition Suit — Appellants Fail to Prove Exclusive Title Over Suit Property. Court upholds trial court's finding that suit property was joint family property and not self-acquired, dismissing appeal for lack o...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Police Head Constable in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Complainant and Lack of Corroboration. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corrup...