Important Point - An omnibus record in the impugned order that there was a possibility of breach of peace in case he was granted parole cannot stand the test of scrutiny when there were no assertions disputing the fact that he had been earlier enlarged on furlough or parole.

Nutan D. Sardessai, J.

Heard Shri R. Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

2. Rule.

3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondents.

5. Shri R. Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the case of the petitioners was within the ambit of “for sufficient cause” as contained in the 2008 amendment to Rule 324(2) of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 and therefore this Court was well within its powers to order the release of the prisoner on parole to participate in his marriage. He adverted to the records of his Civil Registration and the application made to the Inspector General of Prisons i.e. the respondent no.2 as early as 1.12.2016 in view of the impending marriage of the prisoner on 27.12.2016 which was not considered by the respondent no.2 and therefore looking to his conduct and that he had been released several times earlier on furlough or parole, he had to be granted the benefit of parole.

6. Shri M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents adverted to the interpretation of Rule 324 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 which provides for emergent situations contained therein to grant parole to a prisoner and that the marriage of the prisoner was not an emergent situation but his own creation and therefore he could not be granted the benefit of parole. Shri R. Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioners relied in Sanjay @ Gafudiya Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, [(2014)3 Crimes (HC) 590] and pressed for the grant of reliefs in the petition.

7. The issue of release of the prisoner on parole primarily hinges on the interpretation of Rule 324 of the Goa Prison Rules, 2006 and as amended in 2008 to take within its sweep any other sufficient cause other than the grounds on which such parole can be granted in favour of the prisoner. It needs reckoning that the contention of Shri R. Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioners that the conduct of the petitioners was exemplary and that there were no grievances in that regard despite his release on furlough and parole on earlier occasions did not evoke any submission to the contrary by Shri M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Indisputably the prisoner was civilly married to one Gayatri Bansode i.e. the petitioner no.2 as per the undisputed Civil Registration Certificate dated 28.11.2016. The petitioners had moved the respondents for the grant of parole for a period of one month for his marriage having completed 11 years and some months of his sentence as a convict imprisoned for life. It was also not in dispute that the marriage of the prisoner was scheduled on 27.12.2016 but for obvious reasons and that the respondents had vide its order dated 4.1.2017 rejected the application on the premise that there was a possibility of breach of peace in the event of his release on parole and that his marriage did not materialize.

8. Rule 324 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 reads thus:-

“When parole to be granted:-Parole may be granted to a prisoner in the event of emergent situations like death or serous illness of father, mother, brother, sister, spouse and children and also marriage of brother, sister and children or any other sufficient cause.”

The amendment thereto in 2008 and particularly Sub Rule (2) of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 provides that parole can be granted for any other sufficient cause and is not limited to the marriage of the brother, sister and children which were earlier the emergent situations contemplated in Rule 324 of the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 apart from the death or serious illness.

9. Sanjay (supra), who had been awarded the life sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Banswara had moved the parole petition before the Rajasthan High Court after serving more than 10 years of the actual imprisonment