Bombay High Court

ARUN MARUTI GHEVADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to a seven‑day emergency parole on surety bond and set aside the earlier orders denying it.

Summary

The petitioner, a convicted prisoner, applied for emergency parole to attend the last rites of his brother who died on 12‑08‑2026. The sanctioning authority rejected his request for a 14‑day parole, granting only a one‑day parole with police escort, citing the petitioner’s prior breach of a COVID‑parole and his alleged absconding. The petitioner argued that the rules permit emergency parole for up to fourteen days and that he could furnish a surety bond, seeking a seven‑day parole instead. The court examined the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024, particularly Rule 22, and found that the authorities had not recorded independent reasons for refusing the longer parole and had not considered the petitioner’s eligibility for a surety bond. Consequently, the court quashed the earlier orders and directed that the petitioner be released on emergency parole for seven days on a surety bond of Rs. 25,000, with daily police reporting requirements.

Issues considered

The sanctioning authority’s rejection of a 14‑day emergency parole and grant of only a one‑day police‑escort parole is valid in view of the petitioner’s prior parole violation.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a seven‑day emergency parole on surety bond under Rule 22(5) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024.
Whether the appellate authority complied with the procedural requirement to record independent reasons for its decision under Rule 22(4).
Whether the petitioner’s earlier breach of COVID‑parole can be a ground to deny emergency parole for family rites.

Subjects

emergency parole
prison rules
Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024
surety bond
parole denial
COVID parole breach
family rites

Judgment

907-CRWP-664-2026.doc

Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by HARISH
HARISH VITHAL
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
VITHAL CHAUDHARI
CHAUDHARI Date:
2026.08.21
20:20:17 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 664 OF 2026

Arun Maruti Ghevade ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Others ...Respondents.

——————
Mr. Aditya R. Patil i/b Kalpesh Uttam Patil for the Petitioner.
Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
——————

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 21, 2026.
P. C. :

1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner, who is the convict, has

challenged the orders dated 14.08.2026 and 17.08.2026 passed by

Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 2 respectively, rejecting his

application for Emergency Parole for Fourteen (14) days, and granting

Emergency Parole for One (1) day under the Police Escort.

2. Heard both the sides and with their assistance, perused the

papers on record.

3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the Petitioner that, the

Petitioner's brother expired on 12.08.2026, and therefore, the

Petitioner had applied for Emergency Parole for attending the last rites

and other rituals. The rules provides for grant Emergency Parole on

Harish 1 of 7
907-CRWP-664-2026.doc

account of death of family member. The Petitioner is ready to furnish a

Surety Bond. He submits that the Petition be allowed and the Petitioner

may be granted Emergency Parole for Seven (7) days so that, he can

attend the rituals of his deceased brother.

4. The Petition is vehemently opposed by the learned APP. She

submits that, earlier the Petitioner was released on COVID parole and

he did not surrender to the concerned jail after the expiry of his said

parole period. She submits that, the Petitioner was absconding for 840

days, and therefore, considering his past conduct, the concerned

authorities have rejected his application for Fourteen (14) days

Emergency Parole. She submits that, today morning, the Petitioner

submitted an application requesting for One (1) day parole under Police

Escort and the State is ready to bear the expenses for the same towards

the Police Escort. She submits that, considering all aspects of the

matter, the Petition be dismissed.

5. The impugned orders are passed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 2

in exercise of the power vested under the provisions of the Maharashtra

Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024 (said rules).

6. The application made by the Petitioner is for the Emergency

Parole. The term 'Parole' is deined under Rule 2(e) as- "parole means

temporary release of a convicted prisoner from a prison, suspending his

sentence for a short period of time, for attending exigencies as

Harish 2 of 7
907-CRWP-664-2026.doc

speciied in the rules so that he may fulill his familial and social

obligations and responsibilities mentioned in the grounds speciied

under Rule 12 of these rules." Rule 12 of the said rules provides the

grounds for grant of parole. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 12 provides the ground,

to attend the inal rituals on the death of the blood relatives or spouse.

7. Rule 22 of the said rules provides for the procedure to avail

Emergency Parole. The said rule is produced below:

“22. Procedure to avail Emergency Parole.- (1) A prisoner
desiring to be released on emergency parole shall submit an
application either on his own or through his relatives or
friends or legal advisor in Form B in triplicate alongwith
relevant documents to the Sanctioning Authority.

(2) A prisoner belonging to Hindu and other religions (except
Muslims) may apply for emergency parole, within ten days of
the death of his spouse or blood relatives and a prisoner who
is a Muslim, may apply for emergency parole within twenty
days of the death of his spouse or blood relatives.

(3) After receiving such application, the Sanctioning Authority
shall immediately make a primary inquiry with authorities of
the concerned police station as to the veracity of the reason
for emergency Parole and socio-economic or inancial
condition of the prisoner. Electronic mode of communication
can be used for speedy correspondence.

(4) After receiving police enquiry report, the Sanctioning
Authority shall peruse it along with the record of the prisoner
during previous furlough or parole and pass an order in writing

Harish 3 of 7
907-CRWP-664-2026.doc

after recording reasons therefor. The order shall be
communicated to the prisoner and an acknowledgment shall
be kept on record. The order shall also be communicated to his
relatives, friends and surety.

(5) The Sanctioning Authority shall after considering the crime
history of the prisoner, grant emergency parole either with
police escort, or on Surety Bond, Personal Bond and Cash
Security Bond. The cost of police escort shall be borne by the
prisoner or his relatives.

(6) The Sanctioning Authority shall decide the duration of
emergency parole with police escort, but the same shall not
exceed fourteen days.

(7) On compliance of the terms and conditions mentioned in
the sanction order, the Superintendent of Prisons shall issue a
release order in prescribed Form D, wherein the date of
release, date of surrender, terms and conditions, etc. shall be
stated clearly and the prisoner shall be released on emergency
parole, without any delay.

(8) If the Sanctioning Authority rejects the application for
emergency parole, the prisoner may ile an appeal in
prescribed Form I with declaration in Form J, to the Appellate
Authority within two days. The Appellate Authority shall take
a decision regarding the emergency parole, within two
working days and pass an order in writing after recording
reasons which shall be communicated to the appellant
prisoner by the Superintendent of Prisons and an
acknowledgment shall be kept on record. The order shall also
be communicated to his relatives or friends and surety.”

Harish 4 of 7
907-CRWP-664-2026.doc

8. Perusal of the order passed by the Sanctioning Authority goes to

show that, only on the basis of the conviction, the nature of sentence,

and the aspect of jumping the COVID parole, the prayer for Fourteen

(14) days Emergency Parole is rejected and only One (1) day Emergency

Parole with Police Escort is granted. The order by the appellate

authority goes to show that, only on the basis of the report from the

police, the remarks of the Jail Superintendent and the order passed by

the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, the order passed by the

sanctioning authority is maintained. The aforesaid provision of Rule 22

contemplates reasons by the sanctioning authority and the appellate

authority while passing the orders on the application for Emergency

Parole. Impugned orders do not show that, the sanctioning authority

and the appellate authority recorded their independent reasons for

refusing the Petitioner's prayer for Fourteen (14) days Emergency

Parole.

9. As regards the contention of the State that, the Petitioner had

jumped the COVID parole for a considerable period, the said period of

unauthorized absence after the COVID parole period was over, can

always be dealt with by the concerned competent authorities as per the

relevant rules.

10. The reason for applying for the Emergency Parole by the

Petitioner is covered by the grounds provided for the parole under the

Harish 5 of 7
907-CRWP-664-2026.doc

aforesaid rules. Though the application was submitted today morning by

the Petitioner to the prison authorities for One (1) day parole under

Police Escort, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits, on

instructions, that to attend the 13th day ritual of his deceased brother,

the Petitioner is in need of Seven ( 7) days' parole. According to the

Petitioner, he is an agricultural laborer and not in a position to bear the

cost of the Police Escort. The Petitioner is ready to furnish the Surety

Bond for the parole period. The Sub-rule (5) of Rule 22 of the aforesaid

rules permits for the Surety Bond. Considering all the aspects of the

matter, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and request for

Emergency Parole for a period of Seven (7) days on furnishing Surety

Bond is required to be granted. Hence the following order.

ORDER

a) The Petition is allowed.

b) The impugned orders dated 14.08.2026 and
17.08.2026 passed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 2,
respectively are quashed and set aside.

c) The Petitioner be released on Emergency Parole for
a period of Seven (7) days, subject to furnishing of Surety
Bond of Rs. 25,000/-.

d) The Petitioner shall attend the nearest police

Harish 6 of 7
907-CRWP-664-2026.doc

station, i.e., Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji
(Respondent No. 5), between 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM every
day, during his aforesaid parole period of Seven (7) days.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Harish 7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…