A prisoner sought parole to attend his daughter's scheduled marriage. The court examined the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, noting the petitioner's last parole had expired and no exception applied, and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition praying for parole was dismissed and the rule was discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1) Cri. W.P. 119-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 119 OF 2013
Naser Bin Sayyad Chaus,
Age : 66 years (Con. No.4058)
Orig. R/o: Jumma Peth, Vasmat,
Dist. : Hingoli
presently at Open Prison Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Div. Commissioner,
Aurangabad Dist.: Aurangabad
3. D.I.G. Prison, Aurangabad
4. Superintendent, Open Prison,
Paithan, Respondents
Mr. R.D. Sanap, Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH &
M.T. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - S.B. DESHMUKH, J.):-
1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2.Petitioner in this Writ Petition is praying for
following reliefs:-
"A. This writ petition may kindly be allowed;
(2) Cri. W.P. 119-2013
B. By issuing Writ of Certiorari or any
other appropriate writ or direction in
the nature, the impugned order passed
by the Ld. Div. Commissioner
Aurangabad, dated 02.02.2013 may
kindly be quashed and set aside."
3.Present Writ Petition by the petitioner is filed
on 7.2.2013. In pursuance to the notice issued by this
Court, on behalf of the respondents, affidavit-in-reply
is filed. It has been sworn in by Smt. Vidya D/o Ramrao
Mundhe, working as Tahsildar (G.A.D.) in the Office of
the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
marriage of the daughter of the present petitioner i.e.
Mona Begum is scheduled on 17.2.2013 at about 10.30 am.
Petitioner-prisoner, therefore, seeks parole leave,
enabling him to attend the marriage of the daughter of
the petitioner-prisoner.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner, refers to
the earlier order dated 19.4.2012 passed by this Court
(P.V. HARDAS and A.V. POTDAR, JJ.) in Criminal Writ
Petition no. 345 of 2012. With the assistance of the
learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the
(3) Cri. W.P. 119-2013
order referred to. It was Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It reflects
from the said order that the petitioner in that Writ
Petition had filed the application for grant of furlough
and he was under an apprehension that the application
would not be considered by the respondents. This Court,
therefore, permitted the petitioner to file an
application, praying for his release on parole, on
account of the marriage of his daughter. Ultimately,
this Court, directed the respondents in that Writ
Petition that in the event of filing of the application
by that petitioner seeking his release on parole, the
authorities shall decide the same on or before 20th May,
2012. The facts in the said Writ Petition are altogether
different from the facts in the present Writ Petition.
6.In that facts of the present case, it is not
possible to countenance the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. has placed on
record alongwith the affidavit, copy of the Government
Gazettee, wherein there is proviso to Rule 19 of the
Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules,
2012. There is no dispute amongst the learned counsel
present before the Court that parole of the present
petitioner commenced from 15.5.2012 and expired on
(4) Cri. W.P. 119-2013
15.6.2012. In view of the proviso to Rule 19, it has
been provided that a prisoner shall not be released on
parole for the period of one year after the expiry of his
last parole except in case of death of his nearest
relatives mentioned above. Undisputedly, present is not
the case of exception. Reliefs sought, therefore, cannot
be considered favourably. Writ Petition stands
dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
[M. T. JOSHI, J.] [S.B. DESHMUKH, J.]
arp/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether parole leave should be granted to a prisoner for the marriage of his daughter despite the expiry of his last parole period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Criminal Writ Petition no. 345 of 2012Referred¶20
Naser Bin Sayyad Chaus
The State of Maharashtra
Div. Commissioner, Aurangabad
D.I.G. Prison, Aurangabad
Superintendent, Open Prison, Paithan
S.B. DESHMUKH
M.T. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court