Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
R.K. DESHPANDE, ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
Kantilal S/o Nandlal Jaiswal (In Jail) - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through D.I.G. of Prisons, Nagpur Division, Nagpur & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No.573 of 2018
Decided On : 26-06-2018
For the Petitioner:Shri Nitesh Samundre, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. T.H. Udeshi, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Constitution of India 1950 - Applie for grant of emergency parole - Return to Prison - Petitioner has applied for grant of emergency parole for the reason that marriage of his daughter is to be performed on - It is rejected on the ground that petitioner was lastly released on regular parole on for a period of two months and he returned to Prison - Relying upon the amended Rule brought into force by way of notification dated it is urged that the proviso below Rule debars petitioner from getting emergency or regular parole within period of one year of his return to Prison after availing emergency or regular parole - It is further urged that period of one year after petitioners last return to Prison on - Has not yet expired and hence he is not entitled to emergency parole sought for purpose of marriage of his daughter on - In our view proviso below Rule introduced by way of notification dated shall apply to cases where the emergency or regular parole was granted on earlier occasion after coming into force of said notification - In present case this is first occasion after coming into force of notification - Petitioner has sought parole leave on account of marriage of his daughter - He cannot therefore be denied parole leave - In view of above this petition is allowed - Order impugned dated passed by respondent No - Refusing to grant parole leave to petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside Petitioner shall be released forthwith on emergency parole for purpose of marriage of his daughter scheduled to be held for period of fourteen days after necessary compliance - Petitioner shall abide by all such conditions as may be imposed by the authorities concerned – Order according
R.K. Deshpande, J.
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has applied for grant of emergency parole for the reason that the marriage of his daughter is to be performed on 28-6-2018. It is rejected on the ground that the petitioner was lastly released on regular parole on 5-8-2017 for a period of two months and he returned to the Prison on 5-10-2017. Relying upon the amended Rule 19, brought into force by way of notification dated 16-4-2018, it is urged that the proviso below Rule 19(1) debars the petitioner from getting emergency or regular parole within a period of one year of his return to the Prison after availing the emergency or regular parole. It is further urged that the period of one year after the petitioner's last return to the Prison on 5-10-2017 has not yet expired and hence he is not entitled to emergency parole sought for the purpose of marriage of his daughter on 28-6-2018.
3. In our view, the proviso below Rule 19, introduced by way of notification dated 16-4-2018, shall apply to the cases where the emergency or regular parole was granted on earlier occasion after coming into force of the said notification. In the present case, this is the first occasion after coming into force of the notification. The petitioner has sought parole leave on account of marriage of his daughter. He cannot, therefore, be denied parole leave.
4. In view of above, this petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 15-6-2018 passed by the respondent No.1 refusing to grant parole leave to the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be released forthwith on emergency parole for the purpose of marriage of his daughter, scheduled to be held on 28-6-2018, for a period of fourteen days after necessary compliance. The petitioner shall abide by all such conditions as may be imposed by the authorities concerned.
5. Rule is absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
6. Steno copy of this judgment be furnished to the learned counsels for the parties to act upon.
