RUKMINI AMOL KALSAIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner 's brother, namely, Maruti @ Pintu Dattatray Harihar is a life convict, who was arrested in relation to C.R. No.99 of 2000 for the offences punishable under sections 396, 364, 414, 201 read section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station, Pandharpur, District Solapur. The petitioner 's brother (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the convict ') had applied for parole leave on 2nd March, 2020, which was rejected on 14th July, 2020 by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the convict was released on parole/furlough in the past and he had returned to jail in time on two occasions although there was some delay on other occasions. She has, however, submitted that for such delay in reporting to the jail, appropriate action of deduction of remission was taken against the convict. It is submitted that the convict has already spent 22 years in prison. It is also submitted that the mother of the convict is required to undergo a surgery and the presence of the convict is necessary for taking care of her. The learned Counsel submitted that grounds of rejection on the basis of Rules 4(2) and 4(13) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Parole and Furlough) (Amendment) Rules, 2018 cannot be applicable to the convict as he has already completed 22 years of imprisonment. It is also submitted that the Karmala police report specifies that if the convict is released on parole leave, they have no objection as they have verified the entire medical record of the mother of the convict. The learned Counsel has, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed and the convict be granted parole.