High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 06 BOM CK 0108

KANTILAL S/O. NANDLAL JAISWAL (IN JAIL) vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. D.I.G. OF PRISONS NAGPUR DIVISION NAGPUR AND ANOTHER

Bombay High Court · Decided on 26 June 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. DESHPANDE, J, ARUN D. UPADHYE, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No.573 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 360 words

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 28Â6Â2018. It is

rejected on the ground that the petitioner was lastly released on regular parole on 5Â8Â2017 for a period of two months and he returned to the Prison

on 5Â10Â2017. Relying upon the amended Rule 19, brought into force by way of notification dated 16Â4Â2018, 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 5Â10Â2017 has not yet

expired and hence he is not entitled to emergency parole sought for the purpose of marriage of his daughter on 28Â​6Â​2018.

3.

In our view, the proviso below Rule 19, introduced by way of notification dated 16Â4Â2018, 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 15Â6Â2018 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 28Â6Â2018, 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.