IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nisha M. Thakore, J.
Hasan Ahmed Charkha @ Lalu Thro Afsa Hasan Lalu – Applicant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Criminal Application No. 7866 of 2023
Decided On : 14-07-2023
Parole Leave - Article 226 - Section 268 of Cr.P.C. - Section 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 322, 395, 397, 435, 186, 188 read with Section 120(B), 149, 153(A) of IPC, Section 141, 150, 151 and 152 of Indian Railways Act, Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, Section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act - The court examined the legal provisions and held that the release of prisoner on parole would not amount to suspension of sentence. The petitioner was directed to be released on parole leave for a period of 15 days from the date of his actual release.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, convicted under various sections of IPC and other acts, sought parole leave for attending his relatives' marriage. The State objected, citing pending appeal and the bar on suspension of sentence under Section 32A of NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the legal provisions and held that the release of prisoner on parole would not amount to suspension of sentence. It found that the petitioner's release on parole was justified and directed his release for 15 days.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should grant parole leave to the petitioner pending the appeal and considering the bar on suspension of sentence under Section 32A of NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the release of prisoner on parole would not amount to suspension of sentence, citing legal provisions and precedents. It also found that the petitioner's release on parole was justified.
Final Decision: The petitioner was directed to be released on parole leave for a period of 15 days from the date of his actual release.
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 read with Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India by the wife of the convict seeking release of the convict on parole leave for a period of 60 days or for appropriate days from the date of release on any terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to keep in abeyance the notification issued by the State Government under Section 268 of Cr.P.C. in case of the petitioner during the period of parole leave.
2. The brief facts which has emerged on record are summarised as under:
2.1.The petitioner has been convicted in the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 322, 395, 397, 435, 186, 188 read with Section 120(B), 149, 153(A) of IPC as well as under Section 141, 150, 151 and 152 of Indian Railways Act and Section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act and under Section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act in respect of FIR bearing I-CR No. 9 of 2002 registered with Godhara Police Station, Panchmahal. The petitioner was convicted and awarded life imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godhara in Criminal Case No. 71 of 2009 by order dated 01.03.2011. The petitioner had approached this Court in appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 557 of 2011. The aforesaid appeal came to be dismissed vide judgement dated 09.10.2017 confirming the order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition on 02.04.2018. Pending the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner has applied for bail which is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
3. In background of this facts, the petitioner has approached this Court pending the appeal as well as bail application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking parole leave on the ground that the son and daughters of his two sisters are getting married on 16.07.2023. The petitioner being maternal uncle of both bride and the groom and in absence of the father of the petitioner, the presence of the petitioner is required. In support of such averments, the marriage invitation card has been placed on record. It is contended before this Court that the petitioner was released on various occasions on parole leave by this Court and he has surrendered in time before the jail authority without any untoward incident being reported. It is further contended that the jail conduct of the petitioner is good. Hence, it is urged to consider the present application for parole leave.
4. Considering the grounds raised in the petition, this Court by order dated 27.06.2023 had directed the learned APP who had appeared on advance copy to place on record the verification report. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP had appeared on behalf of the respondent-State. On the next date of hearing, the verification report submitted by the concerned police station was placed for consideration of this Court. The fact of marriage being scheduled in the family has been confirmed. Along with the verification report, learned APP has placed on record the jail remarks. From the jail remarks, it had transpired that the co-accused in the same offence have been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 26.04.2023. Upon inquiry from the learned advocate of the petitioner, it was submitted by the learned advocate that the application for bail has been moved by the present petitioner which is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The pendency of appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court has been disclosed by the learned advocate for the petitioner. In absence of any reference of the aforesaid facts in the jail remarks, this Court had called upon the learned APP to confirm the aforesaid fact. This had further led to the issue of maintainabil
Ashfaq vs. State of Rajasthan and others
Dadu alias Tulsidas V/s. State of Maharshtra
Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab
Latif Chhmtumiya Shaikh V/s. State of Gujarat and Ors. 2000 (3) GLH 601
Roger Shashoua V/s. Mukesh Sharma (2017) 14 SCC 722
Smt. Punam Lata V/s. M.L. Wadhawan and Ors. (1987) 3 SCC 34
State of Gujarat v/s Jayantilal M. Patel 1995 (2) G.L.H. 260
State of Gujarat V/s. Jayantilal Maganlal Patel
State of Haryana V/s. Mohinder Singh (2000) 3 SCC 394
State of Haryana V/s. Nauratta Singh (2000) 3 SCC 514
Sunil Fulchand Shah V/s. Union of India (2000) 3 SCC 409
Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409
The court upheld the DPAC's discretion in denying parole, emphasizing the need for valid concerns regarding law and order and the applicability of the old Parole Rules of 1958.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that a convict/prisoner can challenge the rejection of his parole application before the Forum of the Court having jurisdiction over the distri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State authorities cannot exercise their power to grant leave under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, when an appeal is pe....
The court ruled that parole is a privilege, not a right, and must be granted based on satisfactory conduct and compliance with established rules.
Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining the scope of issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in the matter of grant of remission or parole, held categorically that remission/parole is not a vested right.
Releasing authority must independently assess parole applications beyond district non-recommendation; good conduct prisoners entitled to temporary release for family ties despite serious offence, abs....
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.