Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Wednesday ordered the immediate custody of murder convicts who failed to return to prison after being released on parole during the Covid-19 pandemic.The court also summoned the superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati, to explain why action was not taken despite several convicts remaining absconding for years.A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita P Mehta passed the directions while hearing a batch of criminal appeals filed by 12 convicts challenging their conviction in the 2020 murder of Mahesh alias Tulsidas Gawande, registered with Awadhootwadi police station in Yavatmal.As per the prosecution, nine of the appellants were released on parole during different periods between 2020 and 2025 but failed to surrender after their parole expired. Additional govt pleader SS Doifode informed that eight of them surrendered following summons issued during the ongoing appeal proceedings.The bench directed that the parole absconders be taken into custody immediately and remanded them to Central Prison, Amravati. It also issued non-bailable warrants against appellant Sumit Mahadeo Meshram, who failed to appear despite directions, and ordered the senior police inspector of Awadhootwadi police station to secure his presence before the court. Meshram surrendered before the court on Thursday.The court also took serious note of the prosecution’s submission that some convicts had remained absconding for nearly six years after their release on parole. It issued notice to the superintendent of Central Prison, Amravati, directing the officer to remain personally present before the court to explain the alleged inaction against parole violators.Among those taken into custody after appearing before the court were Raj Thakur, Munna Thakur, Vinod Chhaparia, Hanuman Pendor, Pravin Bhagat, Bhimrao Awathare and two others. Three other appellants — Sunil Devtale, Shubham Tekam and Swapnil Kumbhekar — were produced from prison as they were already in custody.During the hearing, the bench also recorded additional statements of several appellants after finding that important forensic evidence had not been put to them during their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial court. The judges said the exercise was intended to give the accused an opportunity to explain “the incriminating evidence appearing against them.”Some accused claimed that police had “planted” bloodstains on the seized weapons and clothes, while others described the forensic evidence as “false” or said they did not know about it.The appeals against their conviction will be heard further after completion of the additional proceedings directed by the high court.
