Judgment : Heard Ms. Collasso, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Milena Gomes e Pinto, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. 3. The above Petition seeks to quash an Order passed by the Respondent no.2 dated 24.01.2013, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner for parole came to be rejected. 4. Ms. Collasso, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has pointed out that under Rule 324 of the Goa Prison Rules 2006, there are specific situations wherein a prisoner can seek parole. Learned Counsel has taken me through the said provisions and pointed out that considering the intent of such Rule, it clearly shows that the right of a prisoner for parole is not restricted only to specific situations as stipulated therein. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the provisions itself qualifies the situation with a word “like” and ends with the words “for any other sufficient cause” which clearly shows that discretion is given to the authorities to grant such parole in exceptional situations of the like nature. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Applicant is the mother of the prisoner who is ailing and is sick and has to proceed even to Malvan to seek medical attention. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Petitioner stays alone in a portion of the residential house and, as such, she requires assistance of the prisoner to help her in her medical treatment. Learned Counsel further pointed out that apart from that, there is a marriage in the family of the only son of the sister of the prisoner and in the peculiar facts of the case, the Petitioner wants to attend such function. Learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Pinto, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents, pointed out that the wedding of the cousin is not included in the cases in which a prisoner is entitled to attend a marriage. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as such the prisoner is not entitled for parole on that count. Learned Addl. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Pinto, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents, pointed out that the wedding of the cousin is not included in the cases in which a prisoner is entitled to attend a marriage. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as such the prisoner is not entitled for parole on that count. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, further does not dispute that on the earlier occasions, the prisoner was released on parole and he had not breached any of the conditions of such parole. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as such submits that the Petition be rejected. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also gone through the records. On bare perusal of Rule 324 of the Goa Prison Rules 2006, there is discretion to grant parole in peculiar situations. In the present case, there is nothing on record to dispute the fact that the Petitioner, who is the mother of the prisoner, is suffering from an ailment and has to even proceed to Malvan for such medical treatment. This is evident from the documentary evidence produced by the Petitioner. No doubt, the marriage of the cousin is not a ground for granting parole but, however, taking note of the fact that the Petitioner is ailing and requires the assistance of the prisoner, I find that the prisoner deserves to be released on parole subject to conditions. It is also to be noted that on earlier occasions, the prisoner has not breached any of the conditions imposed on him. This Order has been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case considering the averments made in the Petition and the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The impugned Order dated 24.01.2013, passed by the Respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. (i) Subhash Krishnan, Prisoner no. Public Prosecutor. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The impugned Order dated 24.01.2013, passed by the Respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. (i) Subhash Krishnan, Prisoner no. 814, at Central Jail, Aguada, is held entitled to be released on parole for a period of 15 days after complying with all the provisions of the Rules and law applicable and subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the concerned authority upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the Jail. (ii) All other conditions shall be imposed by the concerned authorities in accordance with law. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iv) Authenticated copy of this Order be issued to the parties in accordance with law. (iv) Petition stands disposed of.