Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2379
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.K.TAHILRAMANI, SANDEEP K.SHINDE, JJ.
Pandit Shankar Kalan - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2695 of 2017
Decided on : 26-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Santosh Musale Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. H.J. Dedhia, Adv.
Headnote:Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlogh and Parole) Rules, 1959-Rules 4(11) and (13)-Grant of Parole.-Since reasons for rejecting application for grant of parole and dismissal of appeal are not in consonance with each other hence such orders cannot be sustained.
The order of rejection shows that the application of the petitioner for parole cam to be rejected in view of Rule 4(3) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules, 2016 whereas the appellate order shows that the application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected in view of Rules 4(11) and 4(13). Thus, it is seen that reasons for rejecting the application and dismissing the appeal are not in consonance with each other and entirely different reasons are stated in both the orders. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand, hence, the orders are quashed and set aside. The concerned authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for parole afresh. The same be done within four weeks.
SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 28.12.2016. The application came to be rejected by order dated 14.3.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 13.6.2017, hence, this petition.
3. The order of rejection shows that the application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected in view of Rule 4(3) of The Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules (Amendment), Rules 2016 whereas the appellate order shows that the application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected in view of Rules 4(11) and 4(13). Thus, it is seen that reasons for rejecting the application and dismissing the appeal are not in consonance with each other and entirely different reasons are stated in both the orders. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand, hence, the orders are quashed and set aside. The concerned authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for parole afresh. The same be done within four weeks.
4. Rule is made absolute in above terms. It may be stated that the petitioner was initially lodged in Kalamba Central Prison, Kolhapur, however, at present, he is lodged at Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai. The authorities to ensure that the order is served on the petitioner who is in Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai.
