Gujarat High Court
Anugrahdas @ Chote Baleshwardas vs State Of Gujarat on 24 July, 2020
Author: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
R/SCR.A/3020/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3020 of 2020
==========================================================
ANUGRAHDAS @ CHOTE BALESHWARDAS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
THROUGH JAIL(50) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR LB DABHI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 24/07/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned APP Mr. LB Dabhi for the Respondent State through video conference.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. LB Dabhi waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent State.
3. The Applicant - ANUGRAHDAS @ CHOTE BALESHWARDAS (pakka kaidi no. 42229) through jail, has filed this application for grant of parole leave for a period of 60 days on the ground of supporting his family due to the present scenario of COVID-19 pandemic.
4. The applicant is convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Khambaliya in Sessions Case No. 125/2005 in connection with offences punishable under Sections 302,34,201,392 of IPC, registered before Okkha Police Station being CR No. I- 81/2005.
6. Learned APP has fairly submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14 years and 10 months after the conviction and he has never been enlarged on bail since he belongs to Bihar therefore, the District Magistrate has disallowed the application for parole leave.
7. The Court has gone through the jail report wherein it is reflected that the inmate has already completed 14 years 10 months and 9 days in jail after conviction. During that period he has not availed any type of concession and Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 25 00:08:30 IST 2020 R/SCR.A/3020/2020 ORDER the conduct of the accused in jail is good. Further it is the settled law that in Parole leave, the Court will not go through in detail appreciation of evidence not even prima facie case but only on the grounds submitted by the parties is satisfactory, therefore, this Court is inclined to exercise the discretion partly in favour of the applicant.
8. Considering the aforesaid factual background of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is required to be released on parole leave for a period of 30 days instead of 60 days from the date of his actual release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.5000/- before the jail authority and on usual terms and conditions as may be imposed by the jail authority. He has to report after the period of parole leave is over without fail. The applicant shall maintain all the rules and regulations framed by the Municipaly regarding contemporary status of corona virus/Covid-19, State Government or by any competent authority, including social distancing.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned jail authorities forthwith by Fax / by e-mail.
(DR. ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI,J) MOHMMEDSHAHID /ZGS/ radhika Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 25 00:08:30 IST 2020