Tapan Singh @ Gabbar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The present writ petition is directed against the alleged non-consideration of a representation of the petitioner for parole for a period of fifteen days.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities files a report, which is kept on record, annexing therewith the decision of the authorities

dated February 07, 2020, whereby last prayer of the petitioner was rejected.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s minor daughter of five years is under treatment in a hospital in Chennai

and, as such, a minimum of five days’ parole is necessary for the petitioner to visit Chennai and effectively supervise the treatment of his child.

Learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is seeking to get bail effectively, without asking for the

same, in the garb of parole. Moreover, the petitioner is an under-trial prisoner, being tried for nine cases, all of serious nature. As such, it could be

dangerous to grant parole to the petitioner so frequently, since last September itself, the petitioner was already given a parole for two days, which was

enjoyed by the petitioner. In any event, a parole for fifteen days would be too risky in view of the grave nature of the offences for which the petitioner

is being tried.

However, although it is the discretion of the respondent-authorities to consider the prayer for parole, balancing the same with the gravity of the

offences levelled against the petitioner and the risk at granting parole to the petitioner for a period of five days, such discretion cannot debar the

petitioner from making a fresh application for parole for a period of five days, as now prayed for by the petitioner.

Accordingly, W.P. No. 951 (W) of 2020 is disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to make a fresh application before the respondent-authorities

for granting parole for a further period of five days to oversee the treatment of his child, being treated in Chennai.

However, it is made categorically clear that the respondent-authorities shall decide such application in accordance with law in their own discretion,

subject to following the norms of law and natural justice.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.