Gujarat High Court
Ranchhodbhai vs State on 11 August, 2010
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/905/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 905 of 2009
=====================================================
RANCHHODBHAI
BACHUBHAI VASAVA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance :
THROUGH
JAIL for Applicant(s) : 1,
Mr.L.B.Dabhi,learned ADDL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 13/05/2009
ORAL
ORDER
1. This application, through Jail, has been preferred by the petitioner-convict who is, at present lodged at Central Jail, Vadodara, in connection with offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C., for grant of parole for a period of 30 days on the ground that his wife is required to undergo a family planning operation. The application preferred by the petitioner-convict has been earlier rejected by order dated 22-4-2009 by the District Magistrate on the ground that no details regarding the operation are forthcoming.
2. Rule was issued on 12-5-2009. Today, when the matter is taken up Mr.L.B.Dabhi,learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the applicant has not specified any date on which the operation is scheduled to take place and even otherwise,he has remained absconding for a period of 425 days when he was released on furlough from 12-3-2006 to 25-5-2007 and he had to be apprehended by the police authorities.
3. I have heard learned Addl.Public Prosecutor and perused the documents on record. It appears that the operation to be undergone by the wife of the petitioner-convict is a minor one and no date has been indicated, when the said operation is to take place. Further, the petitioner has absconded for a period of 425 days when he was released of furlough. Taking into consideration the above aspects, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with order dated 22-4-2009, passed by the District Magistrate. The application stands rejected. Rule is discharged.
(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J) arg Top