Shri Kailash @ Mahesh Ashok Panchal vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

The Petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the Respondent No.2/Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Eastern Division, Nagpur as well as the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the Respondent No.1/Additional Director General of Police & Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Maharashtra State, Pune and grant parole leave to the Petitioner for the period of 40 days.

As per the contention of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life till remainder of his life. The said conviction and sentence is confirmed by this Court in the Appeal also. Therefore, the Petitioner is undergoing the said sentence. On 18.11.2025, the Petitioner submitted an application seeking parole leave on account of medical treatment of his mother alongwith all supporting documents. On 03.12.2025, the Superintendent, Central Prison Amravati submitted his report regarding the Petitioner’s application. The verification report was also submitted by recording the statements of local witnesses, wherein the witnesses have stated that, initially also the present Petitioner was released on parole and he has not committed any illegal act. The Karjat Police Station has confirmed that, no complaint or offence has been committed by the Petitioner during his previous parole and furlough leave. However, the Respondent No.2 rejected the Petitioner’s application for parole leave by impugned order observing that, in view of Rule 14(1) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024, the Petitioner is now not entitled for the parole.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the present Petitioner has approached this Court.

Learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that, the Authorities i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have specifically observed that, in view of Rule 14(1) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024 i.e. as per the amended Rules, the present Petitioner who is sentenced for imprisonment of life till death are excluded and, therefore, the Petitioner is not held to be entitled for said parole leave and, therefore, no interference is called for.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire documents on record it reveals that, the Petitioner has applied for parole leave on account of the sickness or illness of his mother. The medical certificate also shows that, the mother of the Petitioner is suffering from essential hypertension with uterine fibroid and her urinal are currently abnormal. The medical certificate nowhere says about the continuous attention mother is required hospitalization or any surgery and, therefore, this certificate is not sufficient to consider the request of the present Petitioner to release him on parole leave.

Moreover, Rule 14 (1) of the Maharashtra Prisons (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 2024 i.e. eligibility for parole specifically excludes the present Petitioner, which reads as under:

In view of the above said rule, admittedly, the present Petitioner is not entitled for the parole leave and, therefore, the Petition being devoid of merits liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order.

Rule is discharged.

Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.