Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Jalindersingh Ajitsingh Kalyani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2018

Author: V.K. Tahilramani

Bench: V.K. Tahilramani, M.S. Sonak

                                                                                  10. cri wp 5466-17.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5466 OF 2017


            Jalindersingh Ajitsingh Kalyani                               .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                      .. Respondent

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. Harjeet Kaur Bhagwant Singh Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar                APP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
                                              M.S. SONAK, J.

                              DATE        :   MARCH 7, 2018.


            ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner preferred an application for parole on 3.12.2016 on the ground of illness of his wife. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 19.1.2017. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 13.9.2017, hence, this petition.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 2




                   ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2018                          ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2018 01:32:51 :::
                                                                 10. cri wp 5466-17.doc




3. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected on the ground that he has been convicted under Sections 392 and 395 of IPC. Rule 4(2) of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 states that the prisoners convicted of the offences under Section 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the IPC are not entitled to be released on furlough. Thereafter, by another notification dated 26.8.2016, it is stated that those prisoners who cannot be released on furlough would not be eligible to be released on parole, hence, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected.

4. In view of Rule 4(2) of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 read with Notification dated 26.8.2016, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Authorities, hence, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.





[ M.S. SONAK, J ]                         [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]



jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                              2 of 2




       ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2018                    ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2018 01:32:51 :::