HC relief for long-term convicts to avail emergency parole

The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday held that a person convicted and sentenced for more than seven years, who did not avail parole or furlough twice or more before

The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday held that a person convicted and sentenced for more than seven years, who did not avail parole or furlough twice or more before the Covid outbreak, can still be released on emergency parole.

HT Image

Two persons convicted for crimes under section 302 (punishment for murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and lodged at Kolhapur Prison approached the HC after their application for emergency parole was rejected by the superintendent of the prison.

The superintendent had held that as the emergency parole rule framed by the High Power Committee (HPC) stipulated that the applicant should have availed of parole or furlough twice and as the two convicts did not fulfill the criteria, the application was rejected. The HC, however, observed that the order was absurd, and directed the superintendent to reconsider the applications afresh.

A division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice Milind Jadhav, while hearing a plea by Milind Patil and Nishant Mane challenging the emergency parole rule laid down by HPC, was informed by senior advocate Satish Talekar that following a directive by the Supreme Court (SC) on March 23, the HPC had framed emergency bail and parole rules. The rules were for all those undertrials and convicts whose sentence was less than seven years. The rules were amended on May 8 to include convicts with sentences of more than seven years. The amended emergency parole rule stated that applications of such convicts would be based on two conditions – that a convict should have availed parole or furlough twice or more and returned on time prior to the emergency rules came into force; and that he should not be a habitual offender.

Talekar submitted that as his clients had availed of furlough only once, their application for emergency parole was rejected, though two other convicts who were serving similar sentences were permitted. Talekar argued that the amended rule was absurd and would defeat the purpose of decongesting jails and hence section 19 (C) (ii) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, inserted by Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rule, 2020, should be declared ultra-vires of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The two convicts along with three others had been arrested in 2013 and sentenced to life imprisonment. All five were lodged at Kolhapur Central Prison since their arrest and were serving their sentences after being convicted. Following the Covid outbreak, four of them applied for furlough/parole. While two were granted furlough/parole, Patil and Mane’s application was rejected as they did not conform with the amended emergency furlough/parole rules.

After hearing the submissions, the bench observed that as two other convicts had been granted emergency parole, Patil and Mane should also get the benefit of the same, and quashed the rejection order of the superintendent. HC directed the superintendent to decide the applications for emergency parole in two weeks and disposed of the petition.