IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.M.Deshpande, Amit B.Borkar, JJ.
Aakash – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 96 of 2022
Decided On : 08-04-2022
Prisons - Regular Parole - Eligibility under Rules of 1959
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a convict for serious offences, sought release on regular parole due to his mother's illness. The application was rejected based on ineligibility under Rules of 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had completed the stipulated sentence under Rule 4(2) and was not disqualified under Rule 4(13), thus making him eligible for regular parole.
Issues: The issue was the petitioner's eligibility for regular parole under the Rules of 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(13) of the Rules of 1959 to determine the petitioner's eligibility for regular parole.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the release of the petitioner on regular parole for 45 days.
JUDGMENT
AMIT BORKAR, J. - Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging order dtd. 4/12/2021 refusing to release the petitioner on regular parole on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for being released under Rule 4(2) and 4 (13) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (in short 'the Rules of 1959').
4. The petitioner is a convict for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 364, 397, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to suffer imprisonment for life. The petitioner is undergoing his imprisonment in Amravati jail
5. The petitioner on 24/9/2021 filed an application seeking his release on regular parole on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from a serious illness. The respondent No.1, by impugned order, rejected the application for regular parole on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for being released on regular parole. The petitioner has therefore filed present petition challenging the said order.
6. This Court on 16/2/2022 directed the respondents to file reply. In pursuance of which the respondent No.2 has filed reply stating that the petitioner is not eligible for being released on regular parole as the offences alleged against the petitioner fall within the purview of Rule 4(2) and 4(13) of the Rules of 1959.
7. We have carefully considered the impugned order and Rules 4(2) and 4(13) of the Rules of 1959.
8. Rules 4(2) and 4(13) are read as under :
"4. Eligibility for furlough - All Indian prisoners except from following categories whose annual conduct reports are good shall be eligible for furlough :-
(1) ------
(2) Prisoners convicted of offences under Sec. 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (Prisoners may be eligible for furlough after completion of stipulated sentence in the respective Sec. ).
******
(13) Who is sentenced for offences such as terrorist crimes, mutiny against state, kidnapping for ransom (Prisoners may be eligible for furlough after completion of stipulated sentence in the respective Sec. )."
9. On careful perusal of the Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1959, it appears that the prisoner is eligible for being released on furlough after completion of his stipulated sentence. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner has completed the sentence for which he has convicted for the offences covered under Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(13) of the Rules of 1959. It needs to be noted that the Rule 4(13) contemplates an offence of kidnapping for ransom defined under Sec. 364A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 364 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, the disqualification under Rule 4(13) is not attracted. Hence, said Rule could not have been applied in the case of the petitioner to hold him ineligible for regular parole.
10. Since it is undisputed fact that the petitioner has already completed the stipulated sentence within the purview of Rule 4(2) of the said Rules, there is no impediment for releasing the petitioner on regular parole.
11. Therefore, we pass the following order :
i] The petition is allowed.
ii] The impugned order dtd. 4/12/2021 passed by the respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside.
iii] The respondent No.2 is directed to release the petitioner on regular parole for a period of 45 days on such conditions as the Authority deems fit and proper as per Rules within a period of one week from the date of production of this order.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
The main legal point established is that eligibility for regular parole under the Rules of 1959 is determined by the completion of stipulated sentence and the absence of disqualification under the sp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a prisoner who has completed the stipulated sentence for a specific offence is eligible for regular parole, and adverse reports without suppor....
Eligibility for parole may be reconsidered in emergency situations despite prior furlough, aligning with judicial precedents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility for parole under the Delhi Prison Rules-2018, specifically focusing on the petitioner's failure to fulfill the conditions of furlou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a convict to furlough after completing a certain period of imprisonment as per Rule 3(C) and the objectives of furlough as per R....
Denial of parole must be based on substantial evidence related to security and public order; mere speculative fears are insufficient to withhold a convict's eligibility.
Parole is a conditional release aimed at the reformation of convicts, and denial based solely on non-recommendation by authorities without substantial justification is impermissible.
The court ruled that parole is a privilege, not a right, and must be granted based on satisfactory conduct and compliance with established rules.
The legal principle established is that parole should not be denied based on mere assumptions and there should be sufficient material to support the rejection.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.