SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Guj) 23

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.M.Dharmadhikari, RAVI R.TRIPATHI
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant
Versus
ANIRUDDHSINH MAHIPATSINH JADEJA - Respondent
MISC.CRI.APPLN. 6318 of 2001
Decided On : 01/16/2001

Advocates Appeared: A.D.OZA, K.J.SETHNA, S.N.SHELAT

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Negligence Offence - LPA has been preferred by the State and Inspector General of Police (Prison) to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge whereby against the decision of the authority of the State, parole has been granted to the petitioner who is a life convict for a period of five days so that he may offer condolences to the members of his family, after the accidental death of his younger brother - Held, Discretion has to be exercised in accordance with Rules and on settled guidelines - It has not to be exercised arbitrarily - If it is exercised arbitrarily without taking into consideration the relevant facts and aspects, there can be scope for interference by court - But since power has to be exercised in relation to a prisoner by the prison authority and when this power has been exercised on considerations which are found to be relevant, judicial interference is not called for - It was an error on the part of the learned Single Judge to have substituted his own discretion for the discretion exercised by the State and the prison authorities - In the matter of grant or refusal of parole, greater latitude is required to be given to the authorities as they alone know the actual situation of the prisoner and surrounding social atmosphere - Very fact that the learned Single Judge thought it fit to impose such stringent conditions for security and escort of the prisoner for release on parole, indicates that the State Government was right in refusing parole - LPA allowed. (Para 9)

D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS LPA has been preferred by the State and Inspector General of Police (Prison) to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14. 8. 2001 whereby against the decision of the authority of the State, parole has been granted to the petitioner who is a life convict for a period of five days so that he may offer condolences to the members of his family, after the accidental death of his younger brother on 18. 5. 2001.

( 2 ) LEARNED Single Judge, after considering the objections raised to the grant of parole of the petitioner, imposed stringent conditions requiring security and escort to be provided to the petitioner at his cost and on deposit of Rs. 1 lakh as a condition precedent of his release. The stringent conditions on which parole has been granted are required to be reproduced to appreciate the objections raised by the authority of the State to the grant of parole to the petitioner: (A) that the State Government will provide strict , complete and competent escort and the strength of the escort will be determined by the State Government considering the apprehension which has been pointed out by the State Government. However, it is directed to the State Government to provide appropriate disciplinary escort to the petitioner from the jail authority while transferring the petitioner from Sabarmati Central Jail to Rajkot District Jail. (B) the petitioner is directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 (Rupees one lakh in cash) by himself or any of his relative before the concerned Sabarmati Central Jail authority on or before the release of the petitioner on parole. It is further directed to the petitioner to deposit passport before the concerned jail authority, if possessed by him, prior to release of the petitioner on parole. (C) the brother in law of the petitioner Shri Balvirsingh Dilipsingh Gohel is directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 (Rupees one lakh in cash) before the concerned Sabarmati Central Jail authority on or before the release of the petitioner on parole and he is also required to file an undertaking, as a condition to this order, before this court with assurance to this court that during the five days parole, the petitioner will not indulge into any such activity which adversely affect the public order and public peace and the petitioner will not commit any offence during the parole period of five days and the petitioner will definitely surrender to the concerned jail authority along with escort on completion of five days and in case of any condition of the undertaking so also this order, the brother in law of the petitioner Dalbirsingh Dilipsingh Gohel will be liable to face contempt proceedings for committing breach in any manner by the petitioner. Such undertaking to the aforesaid effect is required to be filed before this court on or before 17th August 2001 and a copy thereof is directed to be served to the State of Gujarat through the office of the learned Public Prosecutor. (D) on compliance of the aforesaid conditions, the State Government is directed to transfer the petitioner from Sabarmati Central Jail to Rajkot District Jail under full escort, at the cost of petitioner, as may be deemed fit by the State of Gujarat considering all the aspects of the apprehension expressed by State. (E) during the 5 days period of parole as granted by this court in the present order, to is directed to the State and the concerned jail authority to take the petitioner from Rajkot District Jail at 7. 00 a. m. in the morning to the village of the petitioner at Ribda with full escort as may be determined and posted by the State and each day during the evening, the petitioner shall be brought back to the Rajkot District Jail on or before 5. 30 p. m. with full escort who may be accompanying the petitioner in the morning hours. It is made clear that for all five days parole, the petitioner will beg taken from Rajkot District Jail to his village Ribda in the morning and brou












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top