Bombay High Court Allows Parole Without Police Escort To Arun Gawli For Attending Son's Wedding

The division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi partially allowed a writ petition filed by Gawli observing that the authority has not given any reason for imposing the condition of police escort and large amount of cash security and surety while granting parole.

The petitioner was convicted under sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC and provisions of section 3 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. He applied for special parole under Rule 19(2) of the Maharashtra Prison (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 for attending marriage of his son to be held on 17 November 2022 at Mumbai.

Deputy Inspector General (Prisons)(East) Nagpur limited the duration of special parole granted to the petitioner to 4 days including the travel period. Further, the parole was granted with police escort and Rs 5 lakh cash security and surety of the same amount. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the limited duration of parole along with the condition of police escort and the high amount of security.

The petitioner's case was that he has undergone imprisonment of approximately 14 years and has never committed any anti-social activity or had any offence registered against him during this period. He has been granted parole/furlough 12 times during his imprisonment and abided with all conditions and has surrendered on due date without delay on each occasion.

The state in its reply justified the parole conditions on the basis of adverse police report and the petitioner being involved in a number of criminal activities. Further, special parole for four days including traveling period with provision of extension of next 4 days was granted in view of amendment in Rule 19(2) of the 1959 Rules.

The court perused the amended notification of Rule 19(2) of the 1959 Rules which provides for restricted time span of parole. Advocate M. N. Ali for the petitioner waived the submission for 15 days parole and conceded that as per amended Rule 19(2) special parole would be for 4 days only with provision of extension.

APP S. M. Ukey for the state referred to the report of Additional Commissioner of Police to justify the police escort. As per the report, the petitioner has rivalry with others gangs involved in criminal activities and hence there is a threat to his life. Ukey said that appropriate quantum of surety has been fixed to ensure timely return of the petitioner.

Advocate Ali argued that the condition of police escort was not imposed in the past 12 occasions where the petitioner has been granted parole or furlough despite the same reasons having been cited by the authority. He further said that security was about Rs. 15000 with the same amount as surety in all earlier occasions of parole/furlough.

The court noted that according to the ACP report, 46 offences have been registered against the petitioner but all the offences were prior to his incarceration. "No special reasons have been quoted as to this time what are the compelling circumstances which have weighed to the authority in anticipating life threat to the petitioner", the court observed. The court noted that the impugned order does not provide reasons for ordering police escort. Therefore, the court concluded that the condition of police escort is not justified

The court further observed that the cash security of Rs. 5 lakh along with surety of equal amount has been imposed on the petitioner without providing any reason. "Imposition of heavy security would ultimately amounts to deprivation of availing the parole which if he is otherwise entitled", the court stated.

The court modified the parole order setting aside the condition of police escort and reduced the amount of security to Rs. 1 lakh cash security with the same amount in surety.

Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 782/2022

Case title – Arun Gawli v. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) (East) Nagpur and Anr.