Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pintu Uttam Sonale, a convict under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking release on emergency parole due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The petition was based on the amendment to Rule 19(1) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, effected by Government Notification dated 8 May 2020, which introduced sub-rule (C) providing for emergency parole for convicted prisoners. The Division Bench, while hearing the petition, noted that there were conflicting decisions by coordinate benches on similar pleas, particularly in the cases of Vijendra Malaram Ranwa vs. State of Maharashtra (where parole was granted) and Sardar s/o. Shawali Khan vs. State of Maharashtra (where parole was denied). The court also considered the observations in National Alliance for People’s Movements vs. State of Maharashtra. Finding an apparent conflict in the interpretation of Rule 19(1)(C), the Division Bench referred the matter to a larger bench to resolve the conflict and determine the correct legal position. The court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim but instead referred the issue for authoritative determination.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Emergency Parole - COVID-19 Parole - Rule 19(1)(C) of Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - Interpretation - The court considered whether a convict under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act is entitled to emergency parole under the amended rule. The Division Bench noted conflicting decisions and referred the matter to a larger bench to resolve the conflict. (Paras 1-3)
B) Criminal Law - Reference to Larger Bench - Conflict of Decisions - The court found an apparent conflict between the decisions in Vijendra Malaram Ranwa vs. State of Maharashtra and Sardar s/o. Shawali Khan vs. State of Maharashtra regarding the interpretation of Rule 19(1)(C). The matter was referred to a larger bench for authoritative determination. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a convict under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 of the POCSO Act is entitled to emergency parole under the amended Rule 19(1)(C) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and whether there is a conflict in decisions of coordinate benches regarding the interpretation of the rule.
Final Decision
The Division Bench, finding an apparent conflict in the decisions of coordinate benches, referred the matter to a larger bench for authoritative determination. The petition was not decided on merits.
Law Points
- Emergency parole
- COVID-19 parole
- Rule 19(1)(C) of Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules
- 1959
- POCSO Act
- Section 376 IPC
- interpretation of parole rules
- conflict of decisions
- reference to larger bench
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (11) 21
Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No.3206 of 2020
K.K. Tated, G.S. Kulkarni, N. R. Borkar
Mr. Rupesh Jaiswal for Petitioner, Mr. Deepak Thakare, PP with Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for State
The State of Maharashtra through Superintendent Nasik Central Prison, Nasik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition seeking release on emergency parole due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought release on emergency parole under the amended Rule 19(1)(C) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, a convict under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act, sought emergency parole in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the amendment to Rule 19(1) of the 1959 Rules.
Previous Decisions
The Division Bench noted conflicting decisions in similar cases: Vijendra Malaram Ranwa (parole granted) and Sardar s/o. Shawali Khan (parole denied), among others.
Issues
Whether a convict under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 of the POCSO Act is entitled to emergency parole under Rule 19(1)(C) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959.
Whether there is a conflict in the decisions of coordinate benches regarding the interpretation of Rule 19(1)(C) that requires resolution by a larger bench.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued for release on emergency parole based on the amendment to Rule 19(1)(C) and the COVID-19 pandemic.
State opposed the petition, relying on the decision in Sardar s/o. Shawali Khan where parole was denied to a similar convict.
Ratio Decidendi
The court did not decide the ratio as it referred the matter to a larger bench. However, the underlying principle is that the interpretation of Rule 19(1)(C) regarding entitlement to emergency parole for convicts under POCSO Act requires resolution of conflicting decisions.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner in the above Criminal Writ petition approached the Division Bench praying that he be released on emergency (COVID-19) parole.
The Division Bench considering the above decisions as also the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in National Alliance for People’s Movements vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. was of the opinion that there is an apparent conflict in the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Vijendra Malaram Ranwa (supra) case and the one decided by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sardar s/o. Shawali Khan.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking emergency parole. The Division Bench heard the petition and noted conflicting decisions by coordinate benches. The court referred the matter to a larger bench to resolve the conflict.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Sections 3, 4, 5
- Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959: Rule 19(1)(C)
- Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897:
