[ad_1]
A high-powered committee in Maharashtra decided to release 50% of the 35,239 prisoners in jails across the state on temporary bail as part of measures to control the spread of Covid-19.
The order, which came a week after 184 prisoners at Arthur Road Central Prison in Mumbai tested positive for Covid-19, does not give a deadline for release or establish what category of prisoners will be sent home.
Follow the latest coronavirus updates here
The committee, chaired by Judge AA Sayed and comprised of additional chief secretary (household) Sanjay Chahande and the director general of SN Pandey prisons, has said that due process will be followed and that the prisoners to be released must obtain the bond.
There are no prisoners accused or convicted under the provisions of special laws, such as the Maharashtra Organized Crime Control Act (MCOCA) of 1999, the Maharashtra Depositor Interest Protection Act (MPID), the Act of Illicit Activities (Prevention) (UAPA) and the Law of Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) will be released on temporary bail due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Chahande said: “They (the prisoners) will have to get bail. That means due process of law will have to be followed.”
For a temporary bond, eligible prisoners must go to the court in question and obtain an order. Parole leave can be secured in jails, he said.
While deciding to release 50% of the state’s prison population, the committee on Monday rejected a representation by attorney SB Talekar, who argued that the decision not to release prisoners accused or convicted under special statutes was discriminatory.
Talekar argued that the general exclusion of prisoners accused or convicted of crimes under the special acts was arbitrary and defeated the impulse of the March 23 order of the Supreme Court to decongest prisons in the wake of the pandemic.
“In any case, prisoners accused / convicted under special acts, including the MPID Act, cannot claim to be released from prison by law. It should be noted that crimes under the MPID Act are against a large number of victims who are mostly poor depositors, and whose interests must be safeguarded and recovered from property.The MPID Act is enacted to protect the interest of depositors and prisoners accused / convicted of crimes under the MPID Act not they can be treated as belonging to the same class of prisoners who will be released on provisional bail or parole, “the committee said.
Click here for full coronavirus coverage
The Supreme Court left it to the discretion of the high-powered committee to determine what class or category of prisoners can be released on provisional bail or parole, depending on the nature and severity of the crime or any other relevant factor, the Committee said while rejecting the Talekar representation.
The Supreme Court, in its order, said: “We direct that each State / Territory of the Union shall constitute a High Power Committee composed of (I) President of the State Committee of Legal Services, (ii) the Chief Secretary (Home / Prison) by whatever appointment is known as (ii) Director General of Prison (s), to determine what kind of prisoners can be released on parole or provisional bail for the period deemed appropriate. “
The main court cited an instance and said: “For example, the State / Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are being tried for crimes for which the prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without a fine and the prisoner has been sentenced for less than a maximum number of years. ”
In a subsequent order dated April 13, the Supreme Court clarified that it had not ordered union states or territories to release prisoners from their jails.
Judge BN Srikrishna, a former Supreme Court judge said: “If this is what the high-powered committee has said, then it is absurd. If prisoners have to follow due process of law, then why was the committee formed? high-powered? How can the committee distinguish between prisoners reserved for special events and others? It is like distinguishing between rich and poor prisoners. If so, the Supreme Court has done nothing to combat the pandemic. ”
.
[ad_2]
