Back
2002 Supreme(Bom) 420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
R.G. Deshpande V.M. Kanade, JJ.
Manjulabai Kisna Gulabe others .... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 165,166 167 of 2002, decided on 24-4-2002.
Advocates appeared :
N.A. Badar, in Cri.W.P. No. 165 of 2002, for petitioner.
D.B. Patel, A.P.P., in Cri.W.P. Nos. 165, 166 167 of 2002, for respondent.
Miss Kalsi, in Cri.W.P. No. 166 of 2002, for petitioner.
V.M. Deshpande, in Cri.W.P. No. 167 of 2002, for petitioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of prisoners to be released on parole for specific reasons, such as attending the marriage of their close relatives, and the discretionary power of the competent authority to grant parole.
Headnote:
Parole - Prisoner's Entitlement to Parole - Prison Act of 1894, Rule 3 of The Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 - The court discussed the provisions of the Prison Act of 1894 and Rule 3 of The Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and emphasized the aims and objects of the furlough and parole system. The court highlighted the entitlement of prisoners to be released on parole for specific reasons, such as attending the marriage of their close relatives, and the discretionary power of the competent authority to grant parole.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sought parole to attend a family wedding. The competent authority had rejected their applications based on the duration of their imprisonment and the grounds for parole as per the rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to be released on parole for a limited period to attend the marriage of their close relatives. It emphasized that the competent authority had construed the provisions of Rule 19 in a narrow manner and erred in not considering the spirit of the rules. The court exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to allow the criminal writ petitions and grant parole to the petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the petitioners to be released on parole for attending a family wedding, the interpretation of Rule 19 of The Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, and the discretionary power of the competent authority to grant parole.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, were entitled to be released on parole to attend the marriage of their close relatives. It emphasized that the competent authority should consider the facts and circumstances of each case and decide the application for parole accordingly.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal writ petitions and granted parole to the petitioners for a limited period to attend the marriage of their close relatives.
2. In these three petitions since the petitions were sent through jail, we have asked Shri V.M. Deshpande, Advocate to appear on behalf of Kisna Gulabe in Criminal Writ Petition No. 167/02 as amicus curie to assist this Court. Similarly, we have appointed Miss Kalshi, Advocate to appear on behalf of Devanand Gulabe in Criminal Writ Petition No. 166/02 and Shri N.A. Badar, Advocate to appear on behalf of Manjulabai in Criminal Writ Petition No. 165/02.
3. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of the parties.
4. We have heard Shri V.M. Deshpande, Shri N.A. Badar and Miss Kalshi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri D.B. Patel, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Shri D.B. Patel, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that at the outset there is no dispute about the fact that the marriage of Miss Savitri who is the daughter of Kisna and Manjula and sister of Devanand, is going to take place on 3rd of May, 2002 and that all the 3 members in the family are in jail. Shri V.M. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Kisna who was leading the arguments in all the three matters, has taken us through the various charts which are provided by the petitioners wherein the particulars of furlough and particulars of parole have been given. In the case of Kisna the particulars of furlough are as given in the chart placed at page No. 10. Kisna has not been released on parole at any time in the past. Shri Deshpande submitted that from the record it is clear that the petitioner Kisna has presented himself on time on completion of his period of furlough and has never over stayed or has never absconded whenever he was released on furlough. He has submitted from 4-11-1996, he was released on furlough on 4 occasions and on every occasion he has returned back to the prison. In the case of Sau. Manjula, she has not been released on furlough or parole. In the case of Devanand, he was released on furlough on 4 occasions and has always returned on due dates. The particulars are given in the chart filed in the case. The prisoner Devanand has never been released on parole previously.
5. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioners and respondents, it is necessary to take into consideration the relevant Act and the Rules made in that behalf. The Prison Act of 1894 being Act No. 9 of 1894 has defined the furlough system and the parole system under sections 5-A and 5-B of the Prison Act, 1894 which reads as follows :
"5(A) : 'Furlough system' means the system of releasing prisoners in jail on furlough in accordance with the rules for the time being in force."
"5(B) : 'Parole system' means the system of releasing prisoners in jail on parole, by suspension of their sentences in accordance with the
