Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
V.K. Tahilramani and Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ.
Pandit Shankar Kalan —Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No.2695 of 2017
Decided on 26.7.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Santosh Musale Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. H.J. Dedhia A.P.P.
.
Headnote:PAROLE—The Maharashtra Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules (Amendment) Rules, 2016—Rules 4(3), 4(11) and (13)—Application for parole rejected in view of Rule 4(3)—Appeal against order was dismissed in view of Rules 4(11) and 4(13)—Reasons for rejecting application and dismissing appeal were not in consonance with each other and entirely different reasons were stated in both orders—Impugned order was liable to be set aside and application remanded.
Held: 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. (Para 3)
Result: Petition allowed accordingly.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
V.K. Tahilramani, J.—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.
Petition allowed accordingly.
