Dismissed

Prakash Krishna Bavlekar v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC10 Aug 2020SCR.A/1643/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special criminal application, the petitioner-convict under the NDPS Act argued that parole leave should be counted as part of his sentence. Drawing reliance on a Bombay High Court decision, the petitioner sought to waive the benefit of Rule 20 of the Prisons (Bombay, Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which states that parole shall not count as remission of sentence.

What did the court decide?

Present petition is hereby rejected.

Prakash Krishna Bavlekar Vs State of Gujarat — Bail and Remand | Gujarat HC (2020)

¶1

R/SCR.A/1643/2020 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1643 of 2020

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

PRAKASH KRISHNA BAVLEKAR

¶6

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 RISHIKESH J MEHRA(8606) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR.R.C.KODEKAR APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 5

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

¶12

Date : 10/08/2020

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

[1] By way of the present petition invoking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner-convict, who is undergoing sentence under NDPS Act has prayed to consider the parole leave enjoyed by him as a part of sentence.

¶15

[2] Heard learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioner and Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent -State.

¶16

[3] Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Dadu @ Tulsidas Manpher Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. passed in Crl. (WP) No. 267 of 2001 dated 01.11.2001, wherein it is held by the Honourable High Court that the period of parole is to be treated as part of sentence and the said period shall be counted towards the sentence undergone by the petitioner. The said judgment shall also be applicable in the case of present petitioner.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

R/SCR.A/1643/2020 ORDER

¶19

[4] On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent - State has strongly objected and contended that in the aforesaid judgment, no reason is assigned by the Court as to how the provisions of Rule 20 of the Prisons (Bombay, Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner and the Honourable Court has not declared the said provisions of Rules to be ultra vires as such. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the present petitioner.

¶20

[5] Rule 20 of the Prisons (Bombay, Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, which read as under:-

¶21

"20 Parole not to be counted as remission of sentence

¶22

The period spent on parole shall not count as remission of the sentence".

¶23

A prisoner may be released on parole, for such period as Government may order in case of serious illness or death of any members of the prisoner’s family or his nearest relatives or for any other sufficient cause. The period spent under parole will not count as part of the sentence.

¶24

[6] Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the materials available on record as well as perused the aforesaid judgment passed by the Bombay High Court, wherein the High Court has not declared the provisions of Rule 20 of Prisons (Bombay, Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 to be ultra vires nor interpreted as to how the said provisions of Rule would be applicable for the prisoner undergoing sentence under N.D.P.S Act. No reliance can be placed upon the said judgment. Moreover, it is crystal clear that in view of the provisions of Rule 20 of the Prisons (Bombay, Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, the period spent on parole leave

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

R/SCR.A/1643/2020 ORDER

¶27

shall not be counted for remission of sentence.

¶28

[7] In view of the above legal position, the present petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be rejected. Therefore, the present petition is hereby rejected.

¶29

(R.P.DHOLARIA, J)

¶30

TAUSIF SAIYED

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Prakash Krishna Bavlekar v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Krishna Bavlekar v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gemalsingh Raghlabhai Rathva Vs State of Gujarat

Alabbi Sakil Rasulkhan Vs State of Gujarat

Vishnubhai Ramprasad Kahar Vs State of Gujarat

Rathod Mehulkumar Rajusinh Vs State of Gujarat

Aslambhai Alias Pe Nurabhai Halari Vs State of Gujarat

Abdul Umar Traya Vs State of Gujarat