Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. One of the main ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner for parole is that the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The application of the petitioner for parole came to be rejected mainly in view of Rule 4(13) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. Rule 4(13) states that prisoners convicted inter alia for dacoity will not be eligible for furlough. Thereafter, by 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. The application of the petitioner is dated 9.11.2016 that is after the said notification, hence, this notification would apply to the case of the petitioner. However, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioner would not fall under Rule 4(13) but it would fall under Rule 4(2) of the Rules. 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. As stated earlier, jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

5. cri wp 3287-17.doc in view of the notification dated 26.8.2016, rules pertaining to furlough are made applicable to the cases of parole, hence, in view of Rule 4(2), the petitioner would not be eligible to be released on parole. No doubt, the Authorities have wrongly mentioned that Rule 4(13) would apply, however, it makes no difference because in view of Rule 4(2) also, the petitioner could not be released on parole. Looking to all these facts, we are not inclined to interfere. Rule is discharged.