Convict released on parole even when he was not able to pay the surety amount: High Court of Bombay
Parole refers to when an individual serving a term of imprisonment gets released into the community, but remains under the supervision of a parole officer. The Competent Authority grants parole only after furnishing surety. A single-judge bench comprising of Justice: V. K. Jadhav and Justice S.G. Dige adjudicating the matter of Santosh Gunaji Dudhmal v. The State of Maharashtra (932 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.849 OF 2021) dealt with the issue of whether to grant the present writ petition or not.
In the present case, a convict From Aurangabad Central Prison made a criminal writ petition before the court.
The Petitioner is a life convict in connection with the crime/case and he is undergoing imprisonment for a long. As per the amended Rule 19(1)(C)(ii) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the respondent has released the petitioner/convict on Covid Emergency parole. However, while granting him Covid Emergency parole, the respondent / Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad has directed the petitioner/convict to furnish two sureties for an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) in addition to the execution of the personal bond. The convict stated that he is a poor person and due to a financially weak position he is unable to furnish two sureties, as directed. The petitioner/convict is ready to furnish one surety for the like amount and thus prayed that the condition of furnishing two sureties as directed by the respondent / Superintendent of Jail may be modified to that extent.
The Respondents stated that though the rule provides no specific requirement or guidelines or directions of furnishing two sureties by the convict while releasing him on Covid Emergency parole, however, the same is left at the discretion of the authority concerned. it was a requirement of furnishing two sureties in the notification issued by the Home Department dated 26.08.2016, however, in the notification dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Home Department, Mumbai omitted the said word “two sureties” and instead of that in Rule 24A, it is mentioned that “the parole may be granted to a prisoner subject to his executing a surety bond in Form A, a Personal Bond in Form B.
Therefore the Respondents in terms of the old notification dated 26.08.2016 has directed the convict to furnish two sureties while granting him Covid Emergency parole. The petitioner/convict is the poverty-stricken person. He is in jail for a long period. It is thus difficult either for him or his relatives to make the arrangement of two sureties.
The Court held that since a convict is a poor person and it is not possible for him or his relative to make the arrangement of two sureties, he is only liable to furnish one surety for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Hence,” The impugned order is modified and the petitioner/convict is directed to execute a Personal Bond of Rs.10,000/- and one surety of Rs.20,000/- which should be an independent surety, not relative to the prisoner. “