Ravi Raghunath Dhumal Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra
2008-02-07
A.B.CHAUDHARI, A.P.LAVANDE
body2008
DigiLaw.ai
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.P.LAVANDE, J.) : Heard Mr.Dahat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ahirkar, learned A.P.P., for respondents. 2. Rule. Mr.Ahirkar waives notices on behalf of respondents. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner who is undergoing imprisonment for life for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code at Central Jail, Nagpur, challenges the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the competent authority rejecting the application for parole filed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner filed application seeking parole on the ground of sickness of his mother. The competent authority has rejected the application primarily on the ground of adverse police report. The competent authority has also observed that the surety offered by the petitioner most of the time remains sick and, as such, is unable to control the petitioner and also there is likelihood of breach of peace. 4-A. Rule 19 of The Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 inter-alia permits a prisoner to seek parole on the ground of serious illness of his family member. In case the petitioner seeks parole on the ground of serious illness of his family member, it is expected of competent authority to first verify whether the ground is genuine and thereafter dispose of the application by following the rules. In the present case, the impugned order discloses that the competent authority has not verified whether the ground given by the petitioner for seeking parole is genuine or not. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 5. Petition is, therefore, allowed. The competent authority is directed to get verified whether the ground given by the petitioner is genuine or not and thereafter pass appropriate orders in terms of Rules within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. The fees payable to the learned counsel who is appointed to appear for the petitioner are quantified at Rs.750/-.