Bombay High Court Allows Emergency Parole to Life Convict in MCOCA Case Due to COVID-19 Pandemic Despite Non-Payment of Fine. Non-payment of fine cannot be a ground to deny emergency parole when the convict has completed the requisite actual sentence and the purpose of parole is to decongest prisons during pandemic.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 128
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Santosh Manohar Deshmukh, was convicted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) on October 20, 2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a cumulative fine of Rs.15,04,000/- and default sentence of 10 years. He was arrested on August 5, 2001 and had been in custody for over 18 years. The Government of Maharashtra, by order dated October 21, 2016, categorized him under Category 7(a) of the 2010 Guidelines for Premature Release, directing his release after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment. The petitioner completed 14 years but could not pay the fine, so he continued to undergo default sentence. In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court directed decongestion of prisons, and a High Powered Committee recommended release of certain prisoners. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking emergency parole. The respondents opposed, arguing that the petitioner was not entitled to parole due to non-payment of fine and that he was a hardened criminal. The court noted that the petitioner had completed 14 years of actual imprisonment and that non-payment of fine should not be a bar to emergency parole, especially when the family was in abject poverty. The court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner's release on emergency parole for 45 days on conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and reporting to the police station weekly.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Emergency Parole - COVID-19 Pandemic - Non-Payment of Fine - Petitioner, a life convict under MCOCA, completed 14 years of actual imprisonment but could not pay fine of Rs.15,04,000/- and was undergoing default sentence - Court held that non-payment of fine cannot be a ground to deny emergency parole when the convict has completed the requisite actual sentence and the purpose of parole is to decongest prisons during pandemic - Petitioner directed to be released on emergency parole for 45 days on conditions (Paras 7-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a life convict under MCOCA who has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment but is unable to pay the fine and is undergoing default sentence is entitled to emergency parole in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Petition allowed. Petitioner to be released on emergency parole for 45 days on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety, and on condition that he reports to the nearest police station once a week. Petitioner to surrender after expiry of parole period.

Law Points

  • Emergency parole
  • COVID-19 pandemic
  • decongestion of prisons
  • non-payment of fine
  • default sentence
  • MCOCA
  • Article 226
  • parole conditions
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (09) 25

Criminal Writ Petition Stamp No. 1690 of 2020

2020-09-15

S.S. Shinde, M.S. Karnik

Mr. Yug Mohit Choudhary a/w. Ms. Payashi Roy for the petitioner, Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State

Santosh Manohar Deshmukh

State of Maharashtra, Superintendent, Kolhapur Central Prison

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking emergency parole in view of COVID-19 pandemic.

Remedy Sought

Direction to respondents to release petitioner on emergency parole.

Filing Reason

Petitioner, a life convict under MCOCA, completed 14 years of actual imprisonment but could not pay fine and was undergoing default sentence; sought parole due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Previous Decisions

Government of Maharashtra by order dated October 21, 2016 categorized petitioner under Category 7(a) of 2010 Guidelines for Premature Release directing release after 14 years actual imprisonment.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to emergency parole despite non-payment of fine. Whether the petitioner's completion of 14 years actual imprisonment entitles him to emergency parole during COVID-19 pandemic.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he has completed 18 years 8 months in custody, completed 14 years actual imprisonment, and non-payment of fine should not be a bar to emergency parole. Respondents opposed, stating that petitioner is a hardened criminal and not entitled to parole due to non-payment of fine.

Ratio Decidendi

Non-payment of fine cannot be a ground to deny emergency parole when the convict has completed the requisite actual sentence and the purpose of parole is to decongest prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Judgment Excerpts

Non-payment of fine cannot be a ground to deny emergency parole when the convict has completed the requisite actual sentence and the purpose of parole is to decongest prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment and is entitled to be considered for emergency parole.

Procedural History

Petitioner arrested on August 5, 2001; convicted on October 20, 2005 under MCOCA and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine; Government order dated October 21, 2016 categorized petitioner for premature release after 14 years actual imprisonment; petitioner filed writ petition in 2020 seeking emergency parole due to COVID-19.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA):
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Directs Removal of Encroachments on Cart-Track Public Road in Land Encroachment Case — Upholds District Collector's Order Under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Cart-track even in patta land is Government land; encroachment...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Accused in Triple Murder Case, Upholding Conviction Under Section 302 Read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. High Court's Reversal of Acquittal Was Held Justified Because Trial Court Erroneously Rejected E...