AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 210 wordsAnoop Chitkara, J
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the present petition on the ground that this Court has limited jurisdiction while interfering in parole matters.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be contended and satisfied that in case, the impugned order is set aside and fresh order is passed by giving reasons thereof.
I have gone through the impugned order which lacks reasoning and logic.
Given above, let the petitioner file a fresh application for parole before the concerned Superintendent of Jail, who shall decide the same within four working days from the date of receipt of the application. In case, he wants to dismiss the said application, he has to give elaborate reasons and such reasons must be supported by rules and laws.
There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioner and State can download this order and other relevant particulars from the official web page of this court and attest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.
Petition is disposed of with the liberty aforesaid. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.