Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs Lal Singh @ Manjit Singh & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 370 and Asfaq vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2017) 15 SCC 55 wherein the Apex Court has held that High Court has the power to grant parole even when the offence is under the provisions of TADA.

4. This Court deems it proper to call the petitioner in person in Court. In pursuance of the directions of the Court, petitioner has been produced before the Court in a wheel chair. The report has been submitted by the Superintendent Central Jail, Jaipur wherein the medical condition of the petitioner is depicted.

5. Counsel appearing for Union of India has opposed the writ petition(parole). It is contended that accused stands convicted in TADA and the writ petition(parole) does not lie before the High Court.

6. Counsel for Union of India has placed reliance upon Latif Chhmtumiya Shaikh vs State of Gujarat, 2001 Cri.L.R.(Guj.)

65.

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was earlier granted parole by the Apex Court and later on by the High Court and after expiry of period of parole, he has surrendered before the Jail authorities and also taking note of the fact that petitioner is aged about 80 years, that he has remained in custody for a period of (3 of 3) [CRLW-1516/2021] more than 27 years, that his medical condition is deteriorating and he needs proper treatment, we deem it proper to grant parole to the petitioner for a period of 30 days.