PANDIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

(2.) All the matters are filed to challegne the orders made by the respondents by which emergency parole which is permissible under the Government Notification dated 8th May 2020, is refused. In these matters, the reason for refusal is given that they had not availed either parole or furlough even on single occasion. In some matters, reason is given that they have availed furlough only on one occasion. The report is produced and it shows that all of them had completed three years of jail term which is requirement to become eligible to get furlough or ordinary parole. There is no other reason given for refusal of the benefit. In other matters - Cri. Writ Petitions No. 1491/2020 and 1492/2020, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor made a statement that the petitioners therein have also completed the jail term of more than three years and there is only aforesaid ground against them.

(3.) In Government Notification dated 8th May 2020, there is a condition that a prisoner ought to have been released on furlough or parole in the past and on last two occasions, he ought to have returned to the jail on his own in time. This Court has interpreted this condition and it is held that the condition is there to ensure that the prisoner returns to the jail on his own when parole period is over. If the prisoner was eligible to get furlough or ordinary parole but he had not availed furlough or parole in the past, this circumstance cannot come in his way to get the benefit of the Government Notification dated 8th May 2020. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the orders made by the respondents cannot sustain in law. In the result, the following order.