Gujarat High Court
Sanjay vs State on 17 May, 2012
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1528/2012 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1528 of 2012
=========================================================
SANJAY
@ THAKUR PURUSHOTTAMDAS SOLANKI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
THROUGH
JAIL for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR PATEL ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 17/05/2012
ORAL
ORDER
Present application is filed by the convict through jail seeking parole leave for a period of 30 days so as to get his father operated for the cataract.
2. Rule.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.H.K.Patel waives service of process of Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor made available for perusal the Jail Remarks. The convict is undergoing life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. By now, the convict has undergone 09 years, 08 months and 17 days. The convict has enjoyed temporary bail on eight different occasions and, except two occasions, wherein once he reported after jail hours and on another he reported 40 days late of his own, he has surrendered in time. The convict has enjoyed furlough on five different occasions and except once he has reported in time. The convict has enjoyed parole leave on five different occasions and has surrendered in time. Nothing adverse is recorded in the jail remarks which will disentitle him from grant of parole leave so as to attend his father who is going to be operated for cataract.
2.1 The convict is required to file this application only because the IG (Prisons) rejected his application for the same by order dated 04/05/2012, a copy of which is produced alongwith the application. The order reflects non-application of mind on the part of the IG (Prisons), as it is mentioned in the order that the ground does not appear to be proper. If the presence of son at the time of cataract operation of his father is not a proper ground, what else could be the proper ground. The Court restrains itself from commenting any further on the order of the IG (Prisons).
3. Taking into consideration the contents of the application, the application is allowed. The convict is ordered to be released on parole for a period of 30 days from the date of his release, on his executing a personal bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the jail authorities.
4. The convict shall surrender to the jail authorities on expiry of the parole period.
5. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
[ Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ] sompura Top