SAMEER @ CHINTYA VITHOBA KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. In view of the limited nature of the challenge, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

(2.) The petitioner, who has been ordered to be released on emergency parole, by order dated 24th June 2021, passed by respondent No.2-Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik, has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by a condition imposed in the said order to the effect that one of the two sureties, to be furnished by the petitioner, shall be a government servant.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Rathod, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsels, we have perused the material on record especially the order dated 24th June 2021, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be released on emergency parole in accordance with Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. ("the Rules, 1959"). Condition No.5 of the said order stipulates that the petitioner shall furnish cash security of Rs.50,000/- and a personal recognizance of Rs.10,000/-. In addition, the petitioner shall furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, one of whom shall be a government servant, and another a relative.